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
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.
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.
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 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.
They gave it to Obama, before he even did anything
In fairness, they really gave it to the idea of Obama much more so than to Obama himself. And really, the idea of Obama is what many people voted for, while in the end we have all received for president the man Obama.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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
Well... Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu, José Ramos-Horta, Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa... The list of great people who won the Peace Nobel goes on and on. You have to look at the big picture here, instead of focusing on United States petty politics.
Many times you need strife to attain peace.
from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
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.
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
Premise 1: The Nobel Peace Prize is to be awarded to the person 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."
Premise 2: Wikileaks is a whistleblowing site.
Premise 3: "Secret secrets are no fun. Secret secrets hurt someone."
Argument: Wikileaks reveal secrets. Secrets discourage "fraternity between nations", specifically between nations that aren't privy to the secrets. Although there may be tension in the short run, along with the corresponding increase in standing armies and reduction in fraternity between nations that share the secrets, in the long run, the fewer secrets that are secret, the more nations realize that they can't do bad things in secret, and thus the better the situation becomes between nations.
Conclusion: Wikileaks merits the Nobel Peace Prize.
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.
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!
what do you seriously expect Mr. Obama to do
Lead.
You're right it's not easy. You're right the situation is complicated. You're right we can't browbeat the Chinese government into treating their people decently. To me, that says the only thing we can realistically do is lead by example. Show the peoples of the world that America still believes in something more than expediency of the moment.
Unfortunately, for far too long, under far too many Presidents, we have done little of that. We coddle dictators as long as they give us something in return. China finances our debt and sells us cheap goods. Egypt gave us aid against terrorists. Ditto for the Saudis. For years we aided Saddam Hussein. All because it was expedient in the short-term, never mind that such dictatorships foster unrest and radicalism. Never mind that this makes these peoples feel we care nothing for them and undermines our future diplomacy.
The hardest part is that Congress is not of one mind on the subject. Most politicians don't think beyond the next election, and aren't likely to go out on a limb unless they have cover. That's why you need leadership. Unfortunately, we haven't had it for a while.
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.
Obama flat out said that he would be ramping up the war in Afghanistan and would be eying Pakistan next. Was anybody listening?
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
Mother Teresa? That woman who said that it's good for people to suffer physically, because that way they connect to God?
Obama didn't start the wars.
But he didn't end them either (as promised during his first year).
We're now on year three. Had I been elected president I'd have said, "That's enough" and bring all the boys home in 2009. Next I'd empty all the foreign bases and hand them over to the EU, Japan, S. Korea, and so on. The excess money saved would be used to eliminate half the annual deficit.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall