The new movie " Snowden "

[Informed Decision]

Just saw it advertised on tv. My first thought was .. Will Mr Snowden receive any royalties from this movie? I suspect the answer is yes. Personally , I have no interest in a movie like this. I consider Mr Snowden a traitor to my country & will not knowingly support any cause that helps him or someone else who may be helping him. I thought from the beginning that somebody would make a movie on this, & I had decided a long time ago that I would not be going.For me , the proceeds from this movie fall under the term of " aid & comfort" I'll be passing on this one.

 

[jasonh31]

Didn't know they were coming out with one but probably still won't see it. Traitor is all in the eye of the beholder. George Washington was a traitor as well to the British. ( Not saying they are comparable or that Snowden is or is not a traitor.)

 

[voidsherpa]

.. Will Mr Snowden receive any royalties from this movie?

Ask him on The Twitter.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Didn't know they were coming out with one but probably still won't see it. Traitor is all in the eye of the beholder. George Washington was a traitor as well to the British. ( Not saying they are comparable or that Snowden is or is not a traitor.)

I can't express my thoughts without getting banned!

 

[Informed Decision]

Didn't know they were coming out with one but probably still won't see it. Traitor is all in the eye of the beholder. George Washington was a traitor as well to the British. ( Not saying they are comparable or that Snowden is or is not a traitor.)

I'm having a hard time correlating George Washington to Mr Snowden. Yes, George Washington would probably have been shot if caught .... Like everyone else in this new country at the time.

Mr Snowden on the other hand, worked for our gov't , stole top secret info from us & then is using that info to feather his bed in a foreign country. Anyone who honestly thinks he is not welcomed by the Russian's with wide open arms & is under their protection ... Well they have a better world view than me.

 

[MCgrease08]

I'm having a hard time correlating George Washington to Mr Snowden. Yes, George Washington would probably have been shot if caught .... Like everyone else in this new country at the time.

Mr Snowden on the other hand, worked for our gov't , stole top secret info from us & then is using that info to feather his bed in a foreign country. Anyone who honestly thinks he is not welcomed by the Russian's with wide open arms & is under their protection ... Well they have a better world view than me.

Certainly not comparable to Washington.

I think you have valid points about the Russians being happy to help him. That aspect does give me some cause for concern. That said, exposing what our own government is doing behing the curtain does hold some merit with me.

In my opinion, the level of government spying, the rights being eroded in secret with little to no due process is a much bigger violation and misuse of power than what Snowden did.

I am not one that would go as far as calling him a patriot, but if I were in his position, I have to believe I would have likely tried to expose it as well.

 

[rhino]

I need a lot more factual information before I am willing to brand Snowden a traitor or a hero or something in between or both. That information is not forthcoming, so I'll never know (and neither will any of the rest of us).

If there were a way to get the truth . . . it would be a refreshing change. I just don't think that anyone who knows what really happened will ever tell the whole story, nor will anyone be able to prove their story is true to my satisfaction. I just do not trust anyone in that world to tell the truth.

 

[IndyDave1776]

How might this story have played out different if it were possible in our allegedly free society to publicly address unconstitutional and/or treasonous activities carried out by our government without having to flee to a less then friendly foreign country for protection? I suppose he could have just sat back quietly while we were being screwed over without our knowledge.

How is he as bad or worse than Hillary illegally storing secret information on a server which practically begged to get hacked. It doesn't seem unreasonable to suppose that this was her method of transferring information to unauthorized persons without actually transferring it to them, yet I don't hear any realistic talk about putting her on trial from the same people calling for Snowden's head on a pike.

 

[Kutnupe14]

How might this story have played out different if it were possible in our allegedly free society to publicly address unconstitutional and/or treasonous activities carried out by our government without having to flee to a less then friendly foreign country for protection? I suppose he could have just sat back quietly while we were being screwed over without our knowledge.

How is he as bad or worse than Hillary illegally storing secret information on a server which practically begged to get hacked. It doesn't seem unreasonable to suppose that this was her method of transferring information to unauthorized persons without actually transferring it to them, yet I don't hear any realistic talk about putting her on trial from the same people calling for Snowden's head on a pike.

You gotta be joking right? There is quite a difference between reckless storing our nation's sensitive information, and stealing it a disseminating it to the entire planet.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You gotta be joking right? There is quite a difference between reckless storing our nation's sensitive information, and stealing it a disseminating it to the entire planet.

You apparently didn't hear what I was saying. How can we be certain that Hillary was NOT illegally and willfully disseminating that information by putting on an easily hacked server to provide a thin layer of plausible deniability?

Also, once again, how wrong is Snowden for letting the cat out of the bag when it appears to a great extent that it is a cat that never should have existed in the first place, and there was no safe legal way for him to address illegalities that didn't end up with him in prison for blowing the whistle while the culprits continued as they were?

 

[Kutnupe14]

You apparently didn't hear what I was saying. How can we be certain that Hillary was NOT illegally and willfully disseminating that information by putting on an easily hacked server to provide a thin layer of plausible deniability?

Also, once again, how wrong is Snowden for letting the cat out of the bag when it appears to a great extent that it is a cat that never should have existed in the first place, and there was no safe legal way for him to address illegalities that didn't end up with him in prison for blowing the whistle while the culprits continued as they were?

We can't... BUT you gotta prove guilt. You can't exactly send someone down the river because of what we "think" they did. Snowden freely admits his crime, and fled to a another nation after committing it. There a an absolutely huge difference between what Clinton did and what Snowden did, based on what we know for fact.

 

[IndyDave1776]

We can't... BUT you gotta prove guilt. You can't exactly send someone down the river because of what we "think" they did. Snowden freely admits his crime, and fled to a another nation after committing it. There a an absolutely huge difference between what Clinton did and what Snowden did, based on what we know for fact.

You are thinking like a cop. That works in court but not in sorting out one's own position on a matter. There may be a significant difference in court, but I sure as the hell won't give Hillary the benefit of the doubt over not having a smoking gun where what I honestly believe is concerned. Also significant is that Snowden isn't running for president where far greater damage can be done.

I also have to raise, once again, the question of what other alternatives Snowden had available. Make believe he didn't see the wrong-doing he saw and become complicit in it by doing so? Make a general public statement and be laughed off as a 'wing nut'? Take hard evidence of wrong doing which would have been confiscated as he was sent to prison and the people who really belong there emerging unscathed? End up with a bullet in his head and probably expected to drive himself to the dump site and write a suicide note like Vince Foster? Seriously, a big part of this is on our society and government for not allowing an 'honest' way out for him, yet here we are deriding him for the way he found to get out, not do what he felt to be participation in the ongoing betrayal of the US citizen, and live without a bullet in his head or confinement to a cage.

As for what you personally believe regarding Hillary--if you want to believe in a long series of impossible coincidences regarding the many people who have fortuitously for her died under questionable circumstances, the persons and entities which contributed generously to the Clinton Foundation and subsequently received significant favor from the State Department, and some of the sloppiest information handling in recent history at the hands of one of the slickest and most careful crooks in recent history, you are entitled to believe whatever you like, but please don't try to tell me I am mistaken for not buying any of this crap.

 

[Jludo]

How might this story have played out different if it were possible in our allegedly free society to publicly address unconstitutional and/or treasonous activities carried out by our government without having to flee to a less then friendly foreign country for protection? I suppose he could have just sat back quietly while we were being screwed over without our knowledge.

How is he as bad or worse than Hillary illegally storing secret information on a server which practically begged to get hacked. It doesn't seem unreasonable to suppose that this was her method of transferring information to unauthorized persons without actually transferring it to them, yet I don't hear any realistic talk about putting her on trial from the same people calling for Snowden's head on a pike.

That's what a liberty loving patriot would have done.

 

[Twangbanger]

I will probably end up seeing the movie, if it's a good piece of work. I wouldn't have committed the acts he did, but taken in perspective, I think he has done some things of significant value to the citizenry. He caught the Federal Government with their hand in the cookie jar, and nobody is trying to deny it. The idea that every piece of classified information is crucial to American Freedom, security, and patriotism has taken some serious hits in this exchange. The Federal Government has elevated undermining the Constitution to a high art form. It has now become apparent that part of that "art" consists of the intentional classification of certain information in order to cover their tracks in these nefarious endeavors, thereby making it impossible (as Dave mentions) for any whistle-blower to raise the situation to effective public scrutiny by "legal" or "ethical" means. Or, for journalists to even report on it without fear of retribution. It is in fact the criminalization of dissent, which America is supposed to be against.

Everyone has to decide whether their ultimate loyalty is to The Eagle, or to the Constitution and the individual. Snowden made his choice, and is willing to live with the consequences. We are, unfortunately, all sadder but wiser as a result.

We as Americans are used to picking between the lesser of evils, and never more so than during an election year. But during the last 8 years, who damaged _your_ Liberty more - Vlad Putin, or Obama? During the next 8 years, who will earn that title, Vlad or Hillary? If you want to swallow the Blue Pill, swear allegiance to The Eagle, wrap yourself in the Law and boycott the movie, that is your right. But when the conundrum is between Vlad Putin getting a bunch of information he probably already knew, anyway, and the American Public finally being let in out of the dark about what's being done to their Liberty right under their own noses, don't be surprised if others reckon the finer ethical points of that scenario differently than you. And, don't believe themselves any less of an American for it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I will probably end up seeing the movie, if it's a good piece of work. I wouldn't have committed the acts he did, but taken in perspective, I think he has done some things of significant value to the citizenry. He caught the Federal Government with their hand in the cookie jar, and nobody is trying to deny it. The idea that every piece of classified information is crucial to American Freedom, security, and patriotism has taken some serious hits in this exchange. The Federal Government has elevated undermining the Constitution to a high art form. It has now become apparent that part of that "art" consists of the intentional classification of certain information in order to cover their tracks in these nefarious endeavors, thereby making it impossible (as Dave mentions) for any whistle-blower to raise the situation to effective public scrutiny by "legal" or "ethical" means. Or, for journalists to even report on it without fear of retribution. It is in fact the criminalization of dissent, which America is supposed to be against.

Everyone has to decide whether their ultimate loyalty is to The Eagle, or to the Constitution and the individual. Snowden made his choice, and is willing to live with the consequences. We are, unfortunately, all sadder but wiser as a result.

We as Americans are used to picking between the lesser of evils, and never more so than during an election year. But during the last 8 years, who damaged _your_ Liberty more - Vlad Putin, or Obama? During the next 8 years, who will earn that title, Vlad or Hillary? If you want to swallow the Blue Pill, swear allegiance to The Eagle, wrap yourself in the Law and boycott the movie, that is your right. But when the conundrum is between Vlad Putin getting a bunch of information he probably already knew, anyway, and the American Public finally being let in out of the dark about what's being done to their Liberty right under their own noses, don't be surprised if others reckon the finer ethical points of that scenario differently than you. And, don't believe themselves any less of an American for it.

Ya know, if all he released was documents pertaining to NSA or other agencies spying on American citizens, that that would certainly be a mitigating factor in my opinion. But he didn't do that. Look into what he released, and the sheer volume. There no way that it could be considered anything but treason. He compromised a lot of intelligence, not only of his home nation, but his allies too.... and one should note, those instances had nothing to do with spying on Americans.

 

[rob63]

Ya know, if all he released was documents pertaining to NSA or other agencies spying on American citizens, that that would certainly be a mitigating factor in my opinion. But he didn't do that. Look into what he released, and the sheer volume. There no way that it could be considered anything but treason. He compromised a lot of intelligence, not only of his home nation, but his allies too.... and one should note, those instances had nothing to do with spying on Americans.

Ok, I took your advice and looked into what he released. What I found is that it is known that he copied a whole bunch of files, but even the government admits that they don't really know what he released beyond what was given to reporters, which pertained to the illegal NSA activities. They have to assume that he released everything, and thus, there was real damage to intelligence gathering. However, as has been pointed out none of that would have happened if they had been following the law in the first place or if there had been a way for him to stop it legally. It remains a very grey matter in my book that hinges on things we simply don't know and probably never will. The claims about the damage he did all come from the same agencies that were caught engaging in illegal activities, which makes it difficult to judge the credibility of the claims.

Regarding the movie, as with all films based on historical events, I will decide whether to watch it based upon how entertaining it appears to be rather than with an idea to learning what happened.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ok, I took your advice and looked into what he released. What I found is that it is known that he copied a whole bunch of files, but even the government admits that they don't really know what he released beyond what was given to reporters, which pertained to the illegal NSA activities. They have to assume that he released everything, and thus, there was real damage to intelligence gathering. However, as has been pointed out none of that would have happened if they had been following the law in the first place or if there had been a way for him to stop it legally. It remains a very grey matter in my book that hinges on things we simply don't know and probably never will. The claims about the damage he did all come from the same agencies that were caught engaging in illegal activities, which makes it difficult to judge the credibility of the claims.

At the bare minimum, we should all know that Russia has the information he "liberated." There's no way I can see them letting that opportunity pass.

 

[rob63]

At the bare minimum, we should all know that Russia has the information he "liberated." There's no way I can see them letting that opportunity pass.

That is assuming things we don't know. Snowden claims they never had the opportunity. Laptops Snowden took to Hong Kong, Russia were a 'diversion' | Reuters

Can Snowden be believed? It is the problem with making any judgement about the whole case, everything we know comes from sources that lack credibility or have obvious conflicts of interest.

 

[Twangbanger]

Ya know, if all he released was documents pertaining to NSA or other agencies spying on American citizens, that that would certainly be a mitigating factor in my opinion. But he didn't do that. Look into what he released, and the sheer volume. There no way that it could be considered anything but treason. He compromised a lot of intelligence, not only of his home nation, but his allies too.... and one should note, those instances had nothing to do with spying on Americans.

If I had to guess, I'd bet Snowden realized he was going to need a new home after all this went down, so he collected (or claimed he did) more material of an unspecified nature to generate interest on the part of potential new home countries...something to give them an incentive to cut him a deal, rather than just send his azz back to 'Murica. I am at a similar disadvantage to you, in that I don't actually know what that "other" stuff beside the NSA info specifically is. According to the WashPo journalists he confided in, much of it dealt with the sort of garden-variety spying America does on friendly countries. So that suggests perhaps it's things that are more of an embarrassing nature, as opposed to anything which actually endangers the US (eg, crap about Angela Merkel, etc.) And perhaps pure embarrassment-value alone is good enough for Russia, and is all they want out of this.

But like I said, who knows? I'm not positive the US government even knows what all Snowden took. We are free to fill that vacuum with what we want to believe, I guess. What I think I can say with some degree of confidence, is that your proposed scenario of him _only_ taking the NSA stuff, and absolutely nothing else, doesn't make sense and simply wouldn't work for obvious reasons.