Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks Nominated For 2011 Nobel Peace Prize
mvar writes "Whistle-blower site WikiLeaks has been nominated for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize by a Norwegian politician who cited its role in freedom of speech, news agency NTB reported Wednesday. 'WikiLeaks is one of this century's most important contributors to freedom of speech and transparency,' parliamentarian Snorre Valen said in his nomination. Valen cited WikiLeaks' role in disclosing the assets of Tunisia's former president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and his nearest family, contributing to the protests that forced them into exile."
I hate when people say things like "X of the century". It's only about 10% of the way there yet, don't go spoiling the rest for us if you have future sight.
...anonymously, as I am in the USA
If Wikileaks has been nominated, does that mean the actual prize going to be won by Mark Zuckerberg?
When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
Just look who got that one before.
I'm sure this will be suppressed somehow, but this is quite appropriate in my opinion.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Good! Wikileaks has done more than most of the former nobel peace prize winners to promote transparancy and peace in the world.
They would deserve it more than Obama, which doesn't necessarily imply that they'd deserve it.
Van Halen cited WikiLeaks' role in disclosing the assets of Tunisia's former president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and his nearest family, contributing to the protests that forced them into exile
But I'm pretty sure they don't have the credentials to nominate someone for a Nobel Prize...
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
In 2010, 237 nominations were made for the Peace Prize, 38 of which were organizations. While it's of some apparent interest that Wikileaks got a nomination, it is one of many and nomination is open to a lot of people.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
Why would anyone care about the Nobel Peace Prize? It's worthless.They gave it to Obama, before he even did anything, who has gone on to escalate wars, both military and economic.
Frankly, I would turn down such a prize. It no longer stands for anything.
Be relentless!
I wouldn't say that WikiLeaks has contributed very much to peace. More like it has contributed rather toward strife.
Peace is overrated anyway. Don't they say conflict builds character?
I doubt the small panel of politicians that decides have the guts to nominate a Western dissident.
It should be a Chinese, Burmese, or Iranian dissdent, but not any of our own controversial figures. /W
The last prize was given to a man (Obama) as a tool to promote peace, and not because of past contributions of the recipient toward peace. The world was tired of the Bush administration and their pro-war foreign policy, and the committee was banking on Obama making a change by giving him a major incentive to do so. Now it has become even more of a political tool with the nomination of Wikileaks. I cannot see how people can remain objective when it comes to considering Wikileaks as a candidate for the peace prize given the political controversy surrounding it.
The Nobel peace prize is meaningless at this point, but I do agree that without question the people at WikiLeaks are heros and should be commended for their efforts. I wish mainstream press was a principled as WikiLeaks.
so....it became meaningless... i don't think wikileaks guys want to have such fellow companions!
how can he be nominated for the nobel peace prize when he has irrevocably endangered our nations military folks? while i can appreciate this persons motives, i could never agree with his methods.
All members of the Nobel Committee have been apprehended by the US government, due to suspicion by the US government that they are aiding in terrorist activities.
The creators of Stuxnet should get the peace prize for setting Iran's nuclear goals back a few years. Hopefully no one will use the code for evil...
The Nobel Committee is losing it. I'd love to receive the Nobel Peace Prize for telling people a bunch of shit they already know.
Since they've already given out two Nobel Peace Prizes for "not being George W Bush" (Gore and Obama) stands to reason a third would be in order.
Man, just think how awful of a President you have to be that people get prizes for being the exact opposite of you.
As far as the last 30 years concerned, they are the ONLY source that has contributed to freedom of speech and the public knowing what their governments were doing. last major flop was during watergate, and both the governments and corporations learned how to deal with that - buy buying out all media into conglomerates. result ? no watergate in the last 30 years.
and no, cryptome, unfortunately, didnt mean shit.
first, they didnt have any success in bringing the issues to the masses into mass media - they never went into danger and publicity like wikileaks did, so it was easy for mainstream media to totally ignore them - just like how they totally kept public in the dark about acta, if you want an example -
and,
they were inflitrated by nsa right at the start :
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1910704&cid=34556662
rendering them totally ineffective.
Read radical news here
Just who has been endangered or is it just a speculation? Citation needed please. Probably just FUD from those exposed by wikileaks.
The Szene: Torture chamber, guantanamo, seven floors downstairs. A guard steps over to the poor fellow who leaked some stuff and says: "congrats, buddy - those wikileakians just won the Nobel price with your leaked documents... We will keep you here for another 10 years " :)
If it weren't for them, the events going on in the mid-east right now wouldn't happen.
There, I said it. Agreed?
Who is going to start the Anti-Nobel website? I think this would be a good place to detail where the atrocities and censorship. Pictures, examples, financial statements. Top 10 list. links to legal offices that work specifically in corruption.
The Nobel Peace Prize, according to Alfred Nobel's will, should be awarded to the person (or organization) who "...shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
Whatever you might think about WikiLeaks' contributions to free speech politics, government transparency, etc., it's hard to see how it's filled any of those criteria. The release of diplomatic cables arguably did a lot to damage fraternity between nations.
Of course, as others have observed, it seems to have been some time since the letter of Nobel's will has meant anything to the Peace Prize committee.
Wikileaks did not cause the Tunisian revolt. The corruption of the ruling family has been known for years
http://www.youtube.com/user/Nawaat#p/u/8/XRW2BJOewcc
The prize given to Obama was meant to award America for choosing someone they believed would lead us away from war, not so much to award Obama himself.
Given how some in his administration consider Wikileaks a terrorist entity or something close to that, it would be interesting to see how he deals with it politically if they were to get the award.
Speaking of which, what do you think of Anonymous' chances of getting Time's "person of the year" ?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
When you recieve something, you feel an obligation to try to uphold it. Obama said himself that he didn't feel like he deserved it, but that he would do his best to live up to it. In many ways, the prize in this instance was meant to serve as a preemptive, "please don't become George W. Bush." That isn't exactly the same as "getting the prize just because he isn't George W. Bush."
Maybe slashdotters are different from normal people, but what would you do if you recieved the Nobel Peace prize? Would it affect how you carry out your daily activities. Would it make you more concious of your choices?
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
...the winner has already been leaked, and WL was not it.
Table-ized A.I.
Isn't the nomination kind of trivial? Bill Handel, a radio host here in Southern California got nominated by someone in Congress in 2005. They treated it like a joke for weeks on the show, and used it to ridicule the Nobel nomination of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, a man put to death by California for *four* brutal murders.
in the respect of PEACE price, it doesnt matter whether they were cooks, machinists, or jugglers - they received them for their ACTIVISM as PERSONS.
example : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#Activism
Pauling had been practically apolitical until World War II, but the aftermath of the war and his wife's pacifism changed his life profoundly, and he became a peace activist. During the beginning of the Manhattan Project, Robert Oppenheimer invited him to be in charge of the Chemistry division of the project, but he declined, not wanting to uproot his family. He did work on other projects that had military applications such as explosives, rocket propellants, an oxygen meter for submarines and patented an armor piercing shell and was awarded a Presidential Medal of Merit.[37][38] In 1946, he joined the Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists, chaired by Albert Einstein.[39] Its mission was to warn the public of the dangers associated with the development of nuclear weapons. His political activism prompted the U.S. State Department to deny him a passport in 1952, when he was invited to speak at a scientific conference in London.[40][41] His passport was restored in 1954, shortly before the ceremony in Stockholm where he received his first Nobel Prize. Joining Einstein, Bertrand Russell and eight other leading scientists and intellectuals, he signed the Russell-Einstein Manifesto in 1955.[42] In 1958, Pauling joined a petition drive in cooperation with the founders of the St. Louis Citizen's Committee for Nuclear Information (CNI). This group, headed by Washington University professors Barry Commoner, Eric Reiss, M. W. Friedlander, and John Fowler, set up a study of radioactive strontium-90 in the baby teeth of children across North America. The "Baby Tooth Survey," headed by Dr. Louise Reiss, demonstrated conclusively in 1961 that above-ground nuclear testing posed significant public health risks in the form of radioactive fallout spread primarily via milk from cows that had ingested contaminated grass.[43][44][45] Pauling also participated in a public debate with the atomic physicist Edward Teller about the actual probability of fallout causing mutations.[46] In 1958, Pauling and his wife presented the United Nations with the petition signed by more than 11,000 scientists calling for an end to nuclear-weapon testing. Public pressure and the frightening results of the CNI research subsequently led to a moratorium on above-ground nuclear weapons testing, followed by the Partial Test Ban Treaty, signed in 1963 by John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev. On the day that the treaty went into force, the Nobel Prize Committee awarded Pauling the Nobel Peace Prize, describing him as "Linus Carl Pauling, who ever since 1946 has campaigned ceaselessly, not only against nuclear weapons tests, not only against the spread of these armaments, not only against their very use, but against all warfare as a means of solving international conflicts."[47] The Committee for Nuclear Information was never credited for its significant contribution to the test ban, nor was the ground-breaking research conducted by Dr. Reiss and the "Baby Tooth Survey". The Caltech Chemistry Department, wary of his political views, did not even formally congratulate him. They did throw him a small party, showing they were more appreciative and sympathetic toward his work on radiation mutation. At Caltech he founded Sigma Xi's (The Scientific Research Society) chapter at the school, as he had previously been a member of that organisation. He continued his peace activism in the following years co-founding the International League of Humanists in 1974. He was president of the scientific advisory board of the World Union for Protection of Life and also one of the signers of the Dubrovnik-Philadelphia Statement. Many of Pauling's critics, including
Read radical news here
So if Assange is awarded the prize, then extradited to the US and executed for espionage or some such, would it be the first time one Nobel Peace Prize winner is executed by another?
It would be appropriate if 'peace' was based on the truth. In my experience, peace between equally matched opponents is usually based on a lie. One party says "I forgive you" or "It doesn't bother me" or "you were right" or "I agree" when they mean absolutely none of those things, but realize that someone must 'bend the knee' in order for there to be peace.
Since the War Lords are the most nominated and the biggest winners of this Nobel Prize. Anything can happens.
DO IT!
Then, when the US Government reacts surprisingly similarly to how China reacted when one of its dissidents won, the world (and more importantly the US citizens) will finally understand what type of country we really live in.
Speaking out when they don't want you to is one of the highest forms of patriotism. Remember that being patriotic is about loyalty to your country and its ideals, not the government or the corrupt bastards that run it.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Obama getting the prize was a message and encouragement for the USA (and an FU to the American rightwing) to move in the right direction which was a horrible MISTAKE but it does not lower the prize forever or mean the next people are less deserving. His acceptance / defiant speech was more of a disgrace than awarding it to him.
1) The prize has been given by DIFFERENT people over its lifespan - its not going to be perfect all the time.
2) Symbolic and abusive use of the Nobel has happened before; for example, the worst one that I know of was when they gave the Nobel prize to Henry Kissinger also given too early into his career (the guy seemed to bring death everywhere he was involved.) Those committee members are gone now. They won't impose a grace period because sometimes it may make sense to award one early - such as last year's Chinese winner or that Iranian lady who probably had it save her life.
3) The Nobel for Economics is not a legit prize and yet the banks funding it have perpetuated this fake prize for decades - it lets them promote their economic agenda; good or ill it was an addition.
4) NOBODY deserves the award more this year than WikiLeaks. period. well, unless you think peace and order is more important than truth and freedom.
This is a good time to promote the Right Livelihood Award (The Alternative Nobel) which is given to anybody not just scientists some approved of economist (I'd never call that science) and 1 politician/activist.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
They are going to be absolutely livid when they see this, especially the republicans. ROFLMAO
A nobel peace prize for Wikileaks?
So far - we are not quite certain, whether wikileaks will aid peace, or actually _cause_ wars.
Think about it - some of the diplomatic papers released were embarrassing (like US diplomats takes on the German foreign minister, or the comments about Putin) - do these aid peace? No.
Some more diplomatic papers seem to reveal some arab states actually urged the US to attack Iran - hmm - is that helping peace along in ANY way? I think it makes conflict between those states MORE likely, not LESS.
Don't get me wrong - wikileaks has done good things - like releasing the helicopter attack videos. These are clear whistleblowing activities, highlighting criminal behaviour. But it seems to me that some of the papers that were released were chosen by the potential size of the print run (i.e. tabloid style), rather than serious and responsible journalism.
Well then, in the interest of free speech and the flow of information, I expect to see Snorre post his credit card info on wikileaks immediately.
To add the superfluousness of the nobel, the irony of the 2009 recipient hosting a dinner for the man who is imprisoning the 2010 winner was lost on the populace.
A fair criticism though I don't think it was lost on anyone. My response would be: what do you want Mr. Obama to do about it? Seriously. It's not an idle or simple question and I'm not interested in unrealistic or idealistic answers. China cannot reasonably be ignored or browbeaten into releasing Liu Xiaobo from prison (not to mention other political prisoners). Our government has made their opinion on the matter clear enough but beyond that what do you seriously expect Mr. Obama to do? The relationship of the US with China is more complicated than civil rights of one man. For that matter the history of the US on civil rights is pretty bad too so it's not as if we can lecture the world without some amount of hypocrisy. One only has to look as far as Guantanamo to see where China could respond on current US policy for civil rights.
It's easy to say we shouldn't host such events with China in order to make a statement. I understand the appeal and simplicity of the logic. Nevertheless that sort of passive aggressive scolding accomplishes little and really ignores the bigger picture.
They told me if I voted for McCain these things would happen.
Yes they probably would have. It didn't much matter who became president. Whatever their differences the political realities of the US relationship with China will tend to override the specific preferences of whoever happens to be president at a given time.
The "idea of Obama" link is a 403. Here is the only other link Google has, from amazon, so I suppose slashdotting fears won't close that one like your first.
I suggest it be called: The Nobel (We Hope You Support) Peace Prize. ...or at least don't start any new wars for the next couple of weeks, if you don't mind.
With this nomination, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. With some US congressmen calling WikiLeaks a treasonous organization and with the tangential evidence that WikiLeaks was a large contributor to the political changes ongoing throughout the Middle East. This could be an interesting situation.
They just want to get him to go to Sweden....
Yes, winning the Nobel Prize is news. Being nominated is NOT news.
Anyhow, at least Wikileaks did something. It's not on par with Liu Xiaobo's, but it's much better than the 2009 winner of the peace prize (Mr. Obama) did not do any "work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses" when he won. His "deeds" were just talk and speculation in 2009 and even now in 2011. Too bad Mr. Nobel didn't put aside something for political speech-writing and finger pointing...
Nominations are kept secret for fifty years so there is no way to confirm whether or not some person has been nominated. The nominators are chosen by the Nobel committee; you can't just send a name in yourself or organize a campaign to nominate someone. All details of the nominations are also kept secret for 50 years, so there is no way to confirm whether or not Snorre Valen is a nominator.
See the Nobel Prize website's nomination facts.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Here's a citation for the number of people put in danger by the leaks, from the Pentagon:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38417666/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If they get a Nobel prize these days they must be.
Wikileaks precipitates riots in the streets and a revolution, and therefore gets the peace prize?
If this actually happens, it will de-value the Nobel prizes for me.
Who are these Nobel people anyway, some bunch of Danes?, and why do people care about what prizes they award?
It was one of two things, either one final slap at Bush Inc or just another group clamoring to be part of the Obama experience. It certainly was not for America.
As far as his reaction, he will let others take that plunge for him. It has been his standard method, when something sticky comes up if he doesn't first shoot himself in the foot (think about his reaction to the harvard incident) he will have some flunky do it unofficially. Which is the most glaring reason his Presidency is so awful, he passes off the ball when its a tough issue and then spikes the football when its accomplished even when he did nothing but sit on the bench.
The Nobel Peace prize has become little more than a statement machine for those who award it, they are far more interested in expressing their political views than highlighting the best of us.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Didn't the 2009 winner host the guy who is holding the 2010 winner at a fancy dinner last month?
Some congresscritters are extremely ignorant. The word "treason" presumes WikiLeaks is a US citizen, or at least an organization run by US citizens. It isn't. Are Russian spies sabotaging the US committing "treason"?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Is it a coincidence, or didn't Wikileaks help instigate revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, and hostile action in Zimbabwe, with the release of the diplomatic cables, not to mention arrests around the world for DDoS hackers? It is probably a coincidence, but while the protests/riots may help democracy in those countries, I don't exactly call it "keeping the peace".
Hugo Chavez is the funder of Wikileaks. Wait and see.
Assange published stolen documents about nothing we already didn't know to create additional anti-american sentiment.
Somebody give him a peace prize!
Shouldn't the prize got to the PFC that leaked the cables then? Wikileaks just grandstanded and delivered them after thoroughly scrubbing them. This is just more grandstanding so they can once again tell the world how they feel. We get it. If it's leftist it's really awesome. Message received. Now take your useless Nobel political statement award and fuck off .
Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
Wikileaks has done more to destablize the free world through espionage, deceit, and short-sightedness and does not even care as to the far reaching ramifications of their potentially catastophic agendas, yielding classified materials to foreign enemies, placing many people in harm's way, and the list goes on. Norway Politicians have no sense if this is the general concensus. Its too bad that such ignorance and widespread chaos is getting a nomination for this nOBEL? prize? That is a joke.
Maybe Julian Assange could receive a peace prize but wikileaks is a web site. How do you give a prize to a web server? What is it going to buy with the prize? A faster hard drive?
...is hardly a qualification for the prize. Yeah, I get that "peace" is part of the name, but promoting peace, paradoxically, does not mean ducking controversy.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
The Nobel Peace Prize, according to Alfred Nobel's will, should be awarded to the person (or organization) who "...shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
Depends on if "nations" means the rich ruling class or the general population. Is Egypt Mr. Mubarak or the people gathering in city squares? Is the US the corporate executives (whether working in their corp or doing their time in federal positions) or the people whose jobs are outsourced and left with low-paying no-benefits jobs? Similar for Tunisia, Israel/Palestine, Afghanistan, Columbia, and others.
Whatever you might think about WikiLeaks' contributions to free speech politics, government transparency, etc., it's hard to see how it's filled any of those criteria. The release of diplomatic cables arguably did a lot to damage fraternity between nations.
Depending on your definition of "nation," you could make a strong argument that transparency makes for more fair and thus more peaceful relations, and less need for armies. Are you better friends with someone you talk with openly, or with someone who lies to you? With which one are you more defensive?
"WikiLeaks is one of this century's most important contributors to freedom of speech and transparency"
I guess that's true... The century is still pretty young.
It's about PEACE. It has been given may to people in that same position as Obama, who were making efforts to bring peace to some region or conflict, but hadn't achieved it yet. The Prize in that situation is supposed to enhance the person's recognition in order to increase their chances of success at bringing peace. Other examples include Desmond Tutu (opponent of South African apartheid who got the Prize long before apartheid actually ended), Jimmy Carter (mideast), Woodrow Wilson (League of Nations), and numerous others. Rachel Maddow did a segment about this just after Obama got the Prize. Transcript here.
Obama ordered the concentration camp / gulag at Guantanamo closed. It turned out he didn't mean it, but it's not their fault that a lot of people were fooled.
If the 2009 recipient finds himself imprisoning the 2011 recipient; don't 'cha think. Apologies to Alanis; and no this isn't ironic either. Just tragic.
See the excellent video interview: WikiLeaks' Julian Assange.
About U.S. President Barack Obama: He did an enormous amount for fundamental peace in the U.S. just by being a credible presidential candidate. That, I'm guessing, is why he was voted to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.
2010: China: "This is an outrage! Liu Xiaobo cannot be nominated! He is an enemy of the state!" US: "Deal with it." 2011: US: "This is an outrage! WikiLeaks cannot be nominated! They're an enemy of the state!" China: "Deal with it."
Nobel peace prize is the ISO standard of fail. Henry Kissinger, Jasser Arafat, Ariel Sharon and Obama... It's a disgusting, twisted lie. A true doublespeak effort. I guess the nomination is just another attempt to discredit Wikileaks.
U.S. President Barack Obama did an enormous amount for fundamental peace between whites and blacks in the U.S. just by being a credible presidential candidate. That, I'm guessing, is why he was voted to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.
You mean Ronald "we start the bombing in five minutes" Reagan? They guy that kept poking the USSR with a nuclear stick that sold weapons to Hezbolla, Iran, Afgan warlords we are currently fighting against and sent the navy in with the loss of many US lives to help Saddam? I wonder why Gorbachev who came in after the USSR militarists to reverse what they did and not Reagan won the thing?
That said I must admit that I could not even have been bothered to cross the street and walk a short distance to see Gorbachev speak when he was in my city a few years ago. Gorbachev is no saint and probably doesn't deserve it either but suggesting Reagan was pursuing a path to promote world peace is revisionist bullshit more suited to a Stalinist country than the USA.
U.S. President Barack Obama did an enormous amount for fundamental cultural harmony between whites and blacks in the U.S. simply by being a credible presidential candidate. That, I'm guessing, is why he was voted to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.
CBS News video interview: WikiLeaks' Julian Assange..
I disagree that the Nobel Peace Prize is meaningless. It's known that dissidents who receive the award become very difficult to kill, although usually they aren't released from prison either. Awards are also given, or not given, for very political reasons however. Obama isn't that out-of-line for a political award, vaguely on par with Arafat. The Nobel Peace Prize's two biggest disgraces were awarding Henry Kissinger and not awarding Mahatma Gandhi. wtf!?!
Obama was awarded the prize simply because (a) he convincingly said he wanted to do good things, like ending torture, closing Guantánamo Bay, etc., and (b) he clearly held the power to do so. Awarding him the prize was meant to help insure that he carried out those campaign promises, both by granting him greater authority to do so, and by causing embarrassment if he did not.
I imagine the nobel committee simply didn't understand several factors :
- Republicans are inherently so polarized they won't care who supports Obama.
- Democrats are such cowards that a foreign peace prize will shame them in front of the Republicans.
- Obama was never going to prioritize the clean up Bush's foreign affairs disasters over his own domestic program, i.e. stimulus and healthcare.
We'll never know how much the peace prize helped coerce powerful figures in the executive branch's bureaucracy into supporting Obama's reforms instead of opposing him, but all indications are that the nobel committee got robbed. I'll change that evaluation if & when some retired DoD, CIA, or DoJ official says "Yeah, we were fighting Obama until he won the peace prize."
As I said, their attempt seems much like the Arafat award in it's naivety, but not so bad as the Kissinger award. Or as another comment said : Obama [was given the prize] specifically for not being George W. Bush! Unfortunately, Obama has not done quite as well at not being Bush than many of us had hoped...
There is another darker side to the Nobel Committees selection of Barak Obama, namely the best other candidates were Chinese and Iranian dissidents. We've all seen that China was angered by the nomination of Liu Xiaobo, maybe they wished to postpone any associated economic pain. I'd imagine they wouldn't want to nominate an Iranian dissident because that might tacitly endorse Bush's foreign policy. You might even imagine that Obama's prize was the cowards way lining up an Iranian nomination without endorsing Bush, but the non-cowards won this years debate by giving the prize to Liu Xiaobo.
Finally, if you think the Nobel Prize has become meaningless, then you should hope like hell the award goes to wikileaks this year. Why? Easy, it'll deeply embarrass Sweden that Assange can't receive the prize in person. Epic lulz!
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Wow paranoid left field throwout there! Where did that Gore idea come from? Was that your own idea or did some grown-up help you?
Al Gore was not given a price for not being George Bush. He was given it for his role in promoting the extremely important information that the IPCC reveals about the human causes of current climate change.
But you hate both Obama (he's black) and Gore (he's telling people things they don't want to hear) so you dump them both in as "not Shrub" cos you love Shrub, so they MUST be the same, yah?
This year the Nobel Peace Prize should go to Mordechai Vanunu, who in 1986 publicly ousted the zionist entity's large scale nuclear bomb manufacturing activity at his ex-workplace at the Dimona atomic reactor and also the zionists collaboration with apartheid Sud-Africa, which resulted in the transfer of six A-bombs to white supremacists and the "Vela" atomic test explosion of 1979. Vanunu also disclosed that Golda Meir ordered the assasination of JFK, who, acting on U-2 reconnaisance aircraft intelligence, threatened to carpet bomb the Dimona reactor, unless jews renounced their A-bomb making programme.
Mordechai Vanunu, a sephardim jew of Moroccan origin, has suffered 18 years of imprisonment, including 14 years of solitary confinement at the hands of Mossad, mainly because of his conversion to Christianity. Since his release, Vanunu, living in a monsastery, restarted his activism towards the oppressed palestinian people of Gaza.
If I post Snorre Valen's financial statements and lewd pictures of him with his wife, can I be nominated too? In the spirit of free speech of course.
I guess, after master-terrorist Arafat received it, just about anyone could get nominated.
The Nobel Peace Price has lost all its credibility, and has caused more than one Noble Comittee Chaiman to resign in protest.
I mean, in a list of many who have caused stirs, conflicts and unnecessary uproar worldwide, yes, WikiLeaks might actually earn its place.
1 Guantánamo Bay, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
Tell the Guar...Secretary at the front office your name is Julian Assange and you would like your reward.
You do know that's wasn't Assange himself on Saturday Night Live? That was an actor in a comedy sketch. I can understand in 50 years time when this has all blown over quotes and get misattributed to people, but that sketch was 4 or 5 weeks ago now...
Fair enough. I didn't see the sketch but knew the quote. My research showed that it came from "Assange" on SNL. I tried looking for more information but there wasn't any available. In hindsight, I could have looked to see if he had even made an appearance on the show, but that hadn't occurred to me. It seemed perfectly reasonable that that would be a quip fed to him for use in a skit or introductory rant, so I let it go at that.
It's apt enough not to matter in the end anyway. The point is that it strikes a rather strong chord.
PS: I had to resist the temptation to "missattribute" your quote ...
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Wow! Sherlock? Dated yourself with that one.
Did you remember to shake your fist in rage when you typed? ;-)
Are you people aware that Snorre Valen is a SOCIALIST?
http://sv.no/Users/(UserID)/8ef86c3f23b0569ac29d808b5bdb81b6/(RefNodeID)/30688
http://www.snorrevalen.no/2011/02/02/why-i-have-nominated-wikileaks-for-the-nobel-peace-prize/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snorre_Valen