A Whistleblower of Epic Proportions Is The Most Underrated Film of 2016

Rating: 9/10 (24 February 2017)

What happens when someone reveals 1000's of classified documents to the public and even congressional leaders who were unaware of the information? They are charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 along with other charges of theft and conspiracy. It didn't only happen to Edward Snowden. The same fate befell Daniel Ellsberg 40 years before Edward Snowden risked everything to ensure the United States citizenry had ample information to make decisions about its leadership. Ellsberg released to the press the so-called "Pentagon Papers" which demonstrated the widespread failure of the Vietnam War. High-level military and CIA officials not to mention the Johnson Administration wanted the public shielded from the gross mishandling and immoral objectives of the war. Of course, if the public knew, they would be appalled and they were.
Forty years later, computer genius Edward Snowden released to the public, both national and international, that the National Security Administration (NSA) was literally engaged in digital wiretapping of Americans. Certainly, if a known suspect was engaging in suspicious activities and the NSA and CIA wanted to spy on him to determine if he or she posed a threat, surveillance of this sort seems the appropriate response. However, supposedly in the interest of national security, the NSA decided to cast a huge net. While hunting for sharks, they ended up catching lots of harmless minnows, tuna, sun fish and blue gills. And all the fish were stored into large digital databases which can retrieved at any moment.
In "Snowden" directed by Oliver Stone, Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Ed Snowden, bona fide computer wizard and eventual US whistle-blower. The film traces his early years in the military to applying for a job in the CIA. According to the film, he is at first a right-leaning conservative who approves of the War in Iraq hosted by the Bush-Cheney administration. His talents are noticed by those in the CIA, and he is awarded high-level tech jobs at the agency.
His first stint is in Geneva, Switzerland where he learns about the CIA's dirty tricks to compel powerful civilians from other countries to disclose classified information. He learns about how the CIA is keeping tabs on millions of people, particularly those connected to the upper-reaches of political power. He is shown a set-up of a powerful banker out of Pakistan whose clients include billionaires from Saudi Arabia and Russia. First, they deport one of his daughters from the US. Phase two is to put the banker into a compromising position so it will seem he was driving drunk. The CIA hopes he will "cut a deal" with the US to avoid drunk driving charges. When Snowden sees these events, he resigns from the CIA.
He eventually becomes a civilian contractor for the NSA and ends up straight in the heart of a surveillance program of epic proportions. The NSA, despite testifying to the contrary, has developed a program in which all emails and cell phone calls are tapped by the government. Not just the baddies but everyone in the world including Americans. In fact, the US is tapping into American citizens more than anyone else. He learns that in one month alone, the NSA tapped into 3.5 billion phone calls and emails. Will he be able to deal with this knowledge and simply do as he's told or will he have to let the world know about what's occurring?
A brilliant film which asks the question: should governments be able to engage in any activity they desire without the consent of the governed? Even President Obama, who had every opportunity to arrest the program, allows the program to continue. Why? Because of supposedly the threat of national security at the hands of terrorists. And yet, according to the film, the threat of terrorism is minimal and the US government desires world domination in markets and other areas of international politics. Is this democratic or totalitarianism?