The WikiLeaks Supporters Forum

Whistleblowers => Edward Snowden => News & Supporters => Topic started by: Riney on April 26, 2015, 12:56:45 PM

Title: CITIZENFOUR - documentary by Laura Poitras... discussions
Post by: Riney on April 26, 2015, 12:56:45 PM
I purchased the documentary on iTunes and finally got around to downloading it. I wanted to start a thread about it to see if anyone has any thoughts about it if they have been able to see the film. I really enjoyed it and have a copy of it that I will watch many times in my ongoing quest to learn more about noble cause corruption and government secrecy in general. I have several interesting thoughts that came up while watching the film and I will be writing about them on this thread to discuss in due time. Right now I am convalescing from an insane work schedule and after I get my head back on straight I will be able to post more. But for now...

 There was just one quick point of the film that caught me off guard and I have to comment on it quickly. It may seem silly to some, but being a person that has seen the way that Assange has consistently falsely accused this forum of being run by the FBI or associated with the FBI or whatever, there was a scene in the film where Assange is talking on the phone and what he said blew me away....

 In the scene, Assange is talking about Ed Snowden to someone about Ed's situation being stuck in the Moscow airport, and Assange literally refers to Snowden as a "CIA agent"?? I am serious. I played it back a few times. Assange clearly is telling someone that Snowden is a "CIA agent", because I assume it must have been in the early stages of Assange getting involved with Snowden's asylum seeking affair and he misunderstood the information about Snowden. He thought Snowden was a defected CIA employee, not a defected NSA employee. Which without a doubt he certainly figured out his error at some point.

 What is interesting is Laura Poitras did not edit that mistake out? Or did she mean to leave it in? If anyone that gets a chance to see the film can double check me...and confirm. I will be watching the film again and again later, and will double check myself because I still can not believe what a total gaff that it is. The scene is at 1 hour 25 minutes and 52 seconds if anyone is interested.

 This may seem trivial to some, but to me personally, having been falsely accused by Assange and his cult of being a paid FBI employee as a smear tactic. It was gratifying to see Assange totally get Ed Snowden's employment status wrong(at least in the early stages). I think it is hilarious!

What I also found funny about it, and this is just my personal irritation and aggravation towards Assange in general... is that the scene is the ONLY scene with Assange in it. The film totally concentrates on Ed Snowden as is appropriate, since he is the real whistle blower here no matter how hard Assange tried to write himself into Snowden's story. Assange plays only a tiny part, a brief fleeting scene, and in that scene he TOTALLY gets something so wrong. Ha Ha! I love it! I find it so gratifying.
Title: Re: CITIZENFOUR - documentary by Laura Poitras... discussions
Post by: mayya on April 26, 2015, 14:42:22 PM

I watched the documentary a while back and Assange does indeed refer to Ed Snowden as a CIA employee.
It is difficult to ascertain whether he is  quoting the media or deliberately misleading whoever he is speaking to.

Ed Snowden is  very articulate and precise in his speech, very clear all through the documentary : i cannot quite fathom how anybody could misunderstand him as being a CIA employee.
Title: Re: CITIZENFOUR - documentary by Laura Poitras... discussions
Post by: Riney on April 26, 2015, 18:03:38 PM
It is true. Ed Snowden first made the world aware of who he was and clearly stated he worked for the NSA loud and clear in the infamous video of his going public long before he left Hong Kong and headed to Moscow. 

  That video was shown all over the world hundreds of times. He described how he worked for the NSA, all of his clearances, he worked for Booz Allen Hamilton etc, etc, . How did Assange not understand that?? and then tell people that he was a CIA agent?? Ha!

  What I also found interesting that Assange states to the person that they are trying to arrange a private jet to fly him to Ecuador, Venezuela, or Iceland to keep him safe, but after revealing he does not have a passport because the US had cancelled his passport. 

   So first of all, can you fly over international borders without a passport? I am not sure how "safe" that would be to attempt. Second, asylum takes quite a while to arrange in any country... did Assange actually think that asylum could be arranged while Snowden was in flight?? Crazy!
Title: Re: CITIZENFOUR - documentary by Laura Poitras... discussions
Post by: mayya on April 26, 2015, 18:27:37 PM

private property does not mean that you are exempt of providing id, for both the airline which maybe be held accountable for whom they are carrying and the country you wish to visit.Some countries require at least six months’ validity on a passport and if you are part of a group, some countries may even prevent the whole group from entering if one of the individuals does not have the right documents.
Visas also apply,  for both private and commercial flights : in some instances, missing documents  will get you fined, jailed or deported

worth noting : it is better not to have some  stamps in your passport  and very often this happens with private flights and you need to request a stamp if you want one - some  countries in the middle east will refuse you entry if you have an israeli stamp and up until recently, the cuban customs did not stamp passports  to avoid awkward situations when travelling to the US or to US embargo abiding countries (not sure if this is still in place)

unless i am missing something, which is entirely possible, assange's attempt to make travel arrangements  for Ed Snowden makes no sense in more ways than one
Title: Re: CITIZENFOUR - documentary by Laura Poitras... discussions
Post by: Riney on April 27, 2015, 11:29:45 AM
Yes, makes no sense in more ways that one, yet Assange and Co insist they really "saved" Ed Snowden. Whatever. Sounds like Snowden was perfectly capable of saving himself and luckily was able to stave off any untoward affect that Assange's arrogance had on his safety. 

   Yeah, Sarah Harrison did accompany him from Hong Kong to Moscow and then stayed with him through his 40 or so odd days before asylum could be applied for in Russia. But, it seems anyone could have done this. The one that did this would have been the one most needing to. The WikiLeaks assistant editor trying to save some of WikiLeak's relevance and credibility in the world.    

  Now we get to hear over and over about how she is in forced exile in Berlin. Please. She is exactly where she needs to be in order to gain any kind of respect back after being so tragically tied to the failing Assange.
Title: CIA assassins
Post by: Junho yang on April 27, 2015, 21:08:42 PM (
(Korean language)

This NEWS say "There was an armed conflict between CIA assassins and a Chinese elite troop in Macau".
I don't know whether this NEWS is true or not.
But, there were many international crimes everywhere which US government created.
Title: Re: CITIZENFOUR - documentary by Laura Poitras... discussions
Post by: Riney on April 28, 2015, 10:51:32 AM
So I have been able to watch the documentary several times now and get a good feel for its contents. One thing that strikes me is the clear difference that Snowden has about the release and availability of ALL of the leaks to the public domain in comparison to Assange.

 He did state that ideally it would be good to have all the information available to the public, to make them a fully informed public, however he did not feel that any organization could control the information flow completely. He himself did not want the responsibility to decide, he wanted to hand the leaks over to what he felt were talented and capable journalist that would be able to publish the leaks responsibility. This is a clear and distinct difference between him and Assange who states defiantly that all information should just be released to the public.

 To add to this subject of who should decide to release what, I watched a panel discussion that included the comments on the subject by Barton Gellman, one of the journalist that Snowden chose to send some of his leaks to. The panel discussion can be heard here:

 The responsibility of what to choose to release or what not to release weighs heavily on any conscientious journalist minds because they want to avoid doing harm. In that discussion Gellman states that he himself is not fully qualified to know what to release and that neither is the president due to conflict of interest. Think of it, how can we really hold the president or secret services accountable if they are the ones that get to decide what information is available to us to hold them accountable for. Seriously.

 At some point I heard Glenn Greenwald in an interview that he himself thinks hard about what to release and what not to release. He said what worries him is that he is not releasing enough as opposed to too much, but still he is taking the time to release the information as responsible as possible. This is also a contrast to Assange's moto "all docs or it didn't happen" that he put out on a T Shirt in order to goad Greenwald into releasing more information than he was releasing.

 So in summary, when it comes to who feels comfortable deciding what to release to the public, Snowden did not feel comfortable with it, Gellman and Greenwald certainly feel it is something that has to be done responsibly, yet Assange is a no holds barred... yes release everything.. or is he

 My biggest beef with Assange is actually he says he is no holds barred...release everything....except when of course it comes to information that does not serve his own agenda in some way. He relentlessly chooses to try and shut down this forum, a place to discuss transparency and government secrecy because this is a place where people are allowed to speak out against his corrupt practices. Yep, Assange is a fraud in my opinion.

 I can only guess that more responsible journalist do not outright speak out against Assange because to do so would in fact cast a shadow towards whistle blowing as a practice. Not to mention that Assange would vindictively attack them online like he does always with people that oppose him. To add insult to that, his little minion cult army would also go after anyone that speaks out against him too. The out right hypocrisy of the whole lot is obscene.
Title: Re: CITIZENFOUR - documentary by Laura Poitras... discussions
Post by: Riney on April 28, 2015, 11:21:45 AM
Ha! One more quick note. I guess instead of speaking out against Assange, maybe it is just best just to avoid mentioning him....check this out... 

    Daniel Ellsberg speaking about whistle blowers....

        Ellsberg called Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning “heroes.” “We need more Snowdens, we need more Chelsea Mannings,” he said. Had there been some earlier, he said, “there would not have been an Iraq war. That would have been a very great service to the United States and the world.”

The full article...

   In time others may feel a need to distance themselves from Assange. Still there can always be back lash from the cult about this. When Laura Poitras took the stage at the Academy Awards to accept an Oscar for CITIZENFOUR, the cult flipped out on twitter about her not mentioning Julian Assange! That was so not appropriate.... Assange only had very small part of the documentary and he only got himself into Snowden's story by desperation and force in my opinion. The cultist are idiots.   
Title: Re: CITIZENFOUR - documentary by Laura Poitras... discussions
Post by: Junho yang on April 29, 2015, 18:17:37 PM
Snowden leaked 1% of truth as much as being of benefit to US steadiness, having nothing to do with foreign victims. 
CITIZENFOUR? Kind of a self-praise.
Title: Re: CITIZENFOUR - documentary by Laura Poitras... discussions
Post by: J.C on April 29, 2015, 18:42:39 PM
Snowden worked several years for The Central Intelligence Agency before he betrayed the National Security Agency as a Contractor. He was never skilled enough to be a real part of the NSA.

About Assange: He is calling anyone a CIA agent, even for years on twitter if he has one of his paranoid attacks.... it is like Assange calling anyone an FBI agent :-P.
Title: Re: CITIZENFOUR - documentary by Laura Poitras... discussions
Post by: Riney on April 29, 2015, 19:12:44 PM
Snowden states in the film that he was a senior consultant for the CIA, but did not elude to any actual CIA field work. Of course it is all secret so who knows what the CIA actually does. I just that it was funny to hear Assange call him a CIA agent since Assange calls so many people FBI. 

   The film is a very good one and I recommend it. Since the film has occurred, there has been a development that the inspector general listed the three journalist that worked with Snowden and his leaks as "agents" of Snowden. Essentially implying that they are all co conspirators. This is not a good development for freedom of information.
Title: Re: CITIZENFOUR - documentary by Laura Poitras... discussions
Post by: J.C on May 05, 2015, 20:05:00 PM
add this here:

A dark cloud is hanging over the Oscar-winning Snowden documentary

A critical flaw in the Oscar-winning documentary featuring Edward Snowden has been further exposed by one of the film's central characters.
"Citizenfour" includes extensive footage of filmmaker Laura Poitras and journalist Glenn Greenwald meeting with the former NSA contractor in Hong Kong.

Read more:
Title: Re: CITIZENFOUR - documentary by Laura Poitras... discussions
Post by: Riney on May 12, 2015, 15:44:18 PM
Interesting comments. I think as time goes on there will be no doubt at least some of the leaks that will be shown not to be beneficial to have leaked. Ed Snowden states in the film that he did not want to be the one to decide what got published. He wanted to leave that up to journalist that he trusted to be responsible in this. He also stated that some of the material was genuinely classified, and did pose a threat to security.