WikiLeaks Nominated For 2011 Nobel Peace Prize

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

WikiLeaks Nominated For 2011 Nobel Peace Prize

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday February 2, 2011 @07:28AM from the tattle-to-the-top dept.

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."

27 of 495 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Century by Squeeonline · 2011-02-02 07:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Century by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 07:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The Nobel Peace Prize means absolutely nothing now. It was blatantly given to someone who had not earned it and did not deserve it, and that person is Barack Obama. He wasn't even in office long enough to help or hinder peace for anyone when it was given to him. It's clear that this once-lofty prize has become infected and tainted by the very politics and cronyism that has corrupted most other institutions. So yeah, this is a nice gesture, but it's just a token one with no real meaning.
  
  Oh and for you more childish types who instantly polarize when Obama is mentioned, grow up. I don't care how nice and decent of a fellow he is. I don't care how much you like him. None of that has anything to do with it. He simply hadn't done anything one way or another for the cause of peace when the prize was awarded to him. There are many people who were more deserving of it than him -- heroes, scientists, doctors, philanthropists, lots of folks who have done much more good. They were all passed up. That's the point.
2. Re:Century by Locke2005 · 2011-02-02 08:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I've explained this before: the Nobel Peace Prize was given to Obama 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...
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
3. Re:Century by golden+age+villain · 2011-02-02 08:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What credibility? What has Wikileaks done for peace? The mention of Tunisia is ridiculous. None of what was mentioned in the cables was news to Tunisians. It was not even news for me who never really researched about the situation in Tunisia. Ben Ali's regime collapsed because he oppressed its population for 20 years and at some point people got sick of it. They did not need anyone to tell them how much the Ben Ali clan was abusing its situation and robbing the country. Plus it remains to be seen how much good this whole revolution will bring.
4. Re:Century by nagnamer · 2011-02-02 08:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's done far more than Barak Obama, and I believe that should qualify.
  
  --
  Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
5. Re:Century by chispito · 2011-02-02 08:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  it was given to barack obama, because instead of emphasizing divisions and accumulated (rightful) anger, he chose to express a road of peace, union and collaboration in between races, and managed to successfully bring black and white together during his election campaign. it doesnt matter whether you like him or not, it doesnt matter what our political views are. this was what had happened. and, scientists dont get PEACE prices, fool.
  So you're saying that he was eligible for the prize because he was a black man who got white people to vote for him? That's not peace, that's political success. Whether it has a long lasting affect on race relations in the US will remain be to be seen (I'm hopeful).
  
  --
  The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
6. Re:Century by dkleinsc · 2011-02-02 08:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The Nobel Peace Prize means absolutely nothing now. It was blatantly given to someone who had not earned it and did not deserve it, and that person is Henry Kissinger. While in office, he did very little to promote peace, and often actively promoted war. It's clear that this once-lofty prize has become infected and tainted by the very politics and cronyism that has corrupted most other institutions. So yeah, this is a nice gesture, but it's just a token one with no real meaning.
  Oh and for you more childish types who instantly polarize when Kissinger is mentioned, grow up. I don't care how nice and decent of a fellow he is. I don't care how much you like him. None of that has anything to do with it. He simply hadn't done anything for the cause of peace when the prize was awarded to him. There are many people who were more deserving of it than him -- heroes, scientists, doctors, philanthropists, lots of folks who have done much more good. They were all passed up. That's the point.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
7. Re:Century by mrops · 2011-02-02 08:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  perspective perspective perspective... I don't believe Yassir Araffat was the head of terrorist organization no more than G. W. Bush was.
  I was bought up in India, and countless times in my history books I read how those who bombed the british rule and parliament were heroes, they still are today with countless statues all over the city. Today you call Arafat a terrorist, if Palestine is liberated he will go down as a hero.
8. Re:Century by ToadProphet · 2011-02-02 08:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You forgot to mention Nelson Mandela - a 'terrorist'. Funny that you didn't bring him up.
  
  --
  It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
9. Re:Century by grcumb · 2011-02-02 09:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What you have said is true. On the other hand, this latest nomination brings the award renewed credibility.
  They gave it to the head of a terrorist organization: Yassir Arafat...... they have no credibility, and will never gain any until they revoke his.
  Feh, Arafat was a dilettante, Henry Kissinger bombed an entire country illegally and they still gave him a Nobel Prize.
  
  --
  Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
10. Re:Century by paesano · 2011-02-02 09:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yes, perspective, perspective. I'm sure from someone's perspective any action can be justified.
  
  The question you should ask is when did Yassir Arafat every do anything that resulted in a lasting peace? He certainly had opportunities, but he always ended up walking away from them. A lasting peace would have made him irrelevant.
11. Re:Century by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 10:38 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  Nope. you get the Nobel Peace Prize for condemning the US. Carter gave a anti-US speach, and he got the prize. Obama gives talks comdemning the power the US has, and he gets the prize. Wikileaks spreads bad press about the US, so they get the prize. If you want the complete set of Nobel prizes, you just have to topple the US, and they will fall over themselves to shower you with prizes.
I second - but... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 07:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

...anonymously, as I am in the USA
Wow by rsborg · 2011-02-02 07:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm sure this will be suppressed somehow, but this is quite appropriate in my opinion.

--
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
1. Re:Wow by commodore64_love · 2011-02-02 07:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  >>>I'm sure this will be suppressed somehow
  You mean like how China refused to let the Nobel prize winner go to his own ceremony? Maybe between now and then, the US will arrest Assange and do the same thing. That would truly be ironic.
  (US acting like China).
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The Nobel Peace Prize is a joke by rs1n · 2011-02-02 07:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Makes sense by tylersoze · 2011-02-02 07:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
"ONE" of this century's contributors ? by unity100 · 2011-02-02 07:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

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
Meaningless. by BaronHethorSamedi · 2011-02-02 08:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Meaningless. by vux984 · 2011-02-02 08:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The release of diplomatic cables arguably did a lot to damage fraternity between nations.
  The release of other things did a lot of good.
  The release of the diplomatic cables did not end the world, and while the governments were embarrassed the actual people I think have been brought together by the frank disclosure that their leaders were being duplicitous jerks. (We all knew this all along, of course. But just putting it out in the open still makes a difference.
2. Re:Meaningless. by Microlith · 2011-02-02 08:23 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The release of diplomatic cables arguably did a lot to damage fraternity between nations.
  Only if you see fraternity between nations as the interactions between their governments. The people of those nations, on the other hand, may get along much better as a result.
  Humiliate abusive governments, make it obvious what they do. Both the US Federal Government and its meddling in the affairs of other nations and the oppressive governments of the middle east. Maybe then we can come to an understanding without worthless warmongers, dictators, and politicians getting in the way?
3. Re:Meaningless. by BaronHethorSamedi · 2011-02-02 10:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I don't flatly disagree with any of your observations. My point is simply that "doing a lot of good," "making a difference," or even the laudable goal of holding governments to account for their actions are not a basis for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize.
  
  I don't think even Wikileaks would suggest that their mission directly entails the reduction of standing armies, the promotion of peace congresses, or fostering fraternity between nations. Their claimed purposes have more to do, again, with transparency, free speech, and public accountability. Those are all good things, but they are not the principles on which Nobel originally wanted the prize awarded.
  
  The fact that there is no Nobel Prize awarded for good work in advancing free speech principles does not mean the criteria for awarding an existing prize should be distorted just so we can give a shout out to some entity whose political aims we like or agree with. Unfortunately, this is more or less what the Peace Prize has become--an amorphous love letter from the Nobel Committee to whoever happens to be doing what they like at the moment.
Re:A nonstory by martin-boundary · 2011-02-02 08:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yeah, but Wikileaks stands out because they actually did something, which can't always be said for some of the previous Peace Prize recipients.
Re:You have it backwards. by ravenshrike · 2011-02-02 08:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'd kick Thorbjorn Jagland in the balls for accepting my nomination and then allowing me to win. I'd also give the King of Sweden a wedgie.
Re:A nonstory by Duradin · 2011-02-02 08:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Person 1: Why did you shoot your dog?
Person 2: Someone was bitten by a rabid dog.
1: The rabid dog was in another city, that was your pet.
2: Well, at least I did something about the rabid dog problem.
Sometimes doing something isn't better than doing nothing.
Re:What an ugly move to discredit wikileaks by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-02 08:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

These awards are clearly in large part politically motivated.
No shit, it's a fucking peace prize.
Re:Peace? by Americano · 2011-02-02 08:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

Assuming your premises are all correct, Bradley Manning should be receiving the Peace Prize, since, you know, he's the one who put his ass on the line to steal those documents and expose the secrets. Without PFC Manning and people like him, Assange would just be an obnoxious misogynist with a web site.
While we're at it, let's give Random House Publishing the Nobel prize for Literature, too. That book they published this year was REALLY good!