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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Yeah, but Wikileaks stands out because they actually did something, which can't always be said for some of the previous Peace Prize recipients.
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
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.
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.