Slashdot Mirror
Edward Snowden Nominated For Nobel Peace Prize
An anonymous reader writes "A Swedish professor of sociology has nominated Snowden for the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize. Giving him the prize would also 'save the Nobel Peace Prize from the disrepute that incurred by the hasty and ill-conceived decision to award U.S. President Barack Obama' the prize, according to professor Stefan Svallfors. He notes ultimately that at great personal cost, 'Edward Snowden has helped to make the world a little bit better and safer.'"
a good idea. This would send a positive message to arrogant governments everywhere.
Smivs on the intertubes!
Adolf Hitler was nominated for the Peace Prize in 1939.
Henry Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize for bombing the shit out of Vietnam and Cambodia.
Obama got the Peace Prize doing sweet FA.
The fact that somebody was either nominated for the Peace Prize, or actually won it, does not actually mean much.
... programs that aren't covered by any Consitutional protection ....
Isn't this enough to make it illegal?
I'm still ambivalent about the Snowden case, as I believe many still are. So we're going to compensate the rush to give the award to Obama by rushing to give it to Snowden?
In the words of Valentine Michael Smith, "Waiting is."
" 'save the Nobel Peace Prize from the disrepute that incurred by the hasty and ill-conceived decision to award U.S. President Barack Obama' "
No, it won't.
You're far, far too late on that one.
-Styopa
You couldn't be more wrong. Snowden exposed the unconstitutional (illegal) surveillance by the NSA. IT IS ILLEGAL. The people at the NSA should go to jail and be tried for treason for going against the constitution, and you should go to school to learn these things.
"Not technically illegal".
Gotta love when a justification starts with that one.
This man not only revealed a not-technically illegal surveillance program
Because the mark of a good representative democracy is secret action in alleged-but-unproven adherence to a set of classified interpretations, produced in a one-sided(in FISA court, the state makes its case, nobody takes the role of opposing counsel, and then the judges approve, of what, exactly, we don't know) proceeding, of what the law allows?
hasty and ill-conceived decision to award U.S. President Barack Obama
Because this isn't hasty orill-conceived. This does prove, however, that the Nobel Peace Prize is designed to be awarded to whomever is popular in the news currently before the public forgets them and moves on to the next disaster. Who is next for the Nobel PP? Trayvon Martin? Or is that story already run its course since the trial is over?
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Actually be responsible for bringing peace to the world? Barack Obama didn't do anything to promote peace when he first took office, and Snowden hasn't done anything "yet" to promote peace either. Nothing saying that what he did might not later, but should we not at least wait to see how the drama unfolds first before we award the medal?
Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
>incurred by the hasty and ill-conceived decision to award U.S. President Barack Obama'
What saved them from the disrepute of giving it to Kissinger & Arafat? Forgetfulness?
Someone should give Obama the "best arming of rebels" award now too just to really rub in how stupid that decision was. Foreigners need to keep their opinions and million dollar prizes out of our elections. Snowden, however, should get one. Well, except that he probably worsened foreign relationships and might actually cause a war. But just on merit, why not?
So the Nobel Peace Prize = "I HATE AMERICA" Prize.
Not really. It's meant to be a prize for making the world more peaceful. Giving it to Obama was nuts, and it's now not clear if this prize has any point any more.
I have bad news for you about that "treason" term you throw around so casually. If you read the _whole_ Constitution instead of just the fashionable parts, you'll find that treason has a very specific definition in Article 3, Section 3. While I agree that the NSA programs are illegal, "the people" {{which ones?}} at NSA didn't meet the definition of treason. Not even close.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
it triggers an actual war somewhere. Stranger things have happened in history.
The world isn't better or safer because of what he's done - it might be one day, but for now we're just slightly better informed.
If there was a Nobel prize for good intentions, sure, give him that.
And let's not forget, Snowden didn't do this in the name of safety (certainly not his own). He did it in the name of liberty.
Still, he deserves it a lot more than some.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Given that the US has the largest military in the world, has been involved in every major conflict of the last 50 years, and instigated a couple of them, it sounds like a pretty decent heuristic to me.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Is that because "peace" = "hate America" or "America" = "hate peace"?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
You are missing the massive difference between legal and right. In Nazi Germany it was legal to kill Jews if you were employed to do that.
If all you care about is what's legal what do you think your country is turning into?
We killed the civilians because it was "Not technically illegal".
You Americans want to worry about what's legal under your laws less and what's moral more.
And the other world powers that have multicultural prime ministers and presidents are ... ? I feel like Obama's Peace Prize was more about transcending race and color finally among the world's super powers. France is super liberal but you'll never seen someone of Algerian descent as their prime minister.
And maybe that proves the point that the color of the your skin really shouldn't matter at all, either when discriminating or when promoting "multiculturalism"? I mean, Obama is just more of the same. They gave him the Nobel Peace Prize because they bought into the whole "hope and change" bandwagon, but then he turned out to be third and fourth terms of Bush.
Why should I care what color the President is, one way or the other?
therefore saying they are unconstitutional is untrue
The Constitution is an exhaustive list of the powers of government. If it's not in the Constitution, it is unconstitutional.
You are now welcome to argue that the NSA's domestic spying program is a war power per the Constitution. With two witnesses, waging war against the states is treason (per the Constitution).
Forget about the consistution; it doesn't contain an infallible or eternal truth.
Do you think this type of spying is right? If you think it should be forbidden and the law doesn't agree; change the law.
Laws reflect the moral code of it's subjects. Do laws that allow these activities still reflect yours?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Even better, impeach Obama give Snowden the Presidency, then you'll have a president that ACTUALLY UPHOLDS THE CONSTITUTION.
How is nominating for a peace prize to Edward Snowden interpreted as hatred to America?
Why can't it be equal to saying that 'we're against unauthorized intrusive spying on you're own citizens'?
Why do people need to degenerate this into hate mongering against an entire country rather than what it is. A critic of a part or it's government going rogue?
Well, what criteria do you propose? The content of their character? ROFLOL
That depends on your criterion for "largest". By defense spending? Most likely. By active military members, reserve members, paramilitary members or military members per capita, then not even close (although we are a distant #2 for active military).
And what do you consider a "major conflict"? There really hasn't been that many truly major individual conflicts in the last fifty years when compared to the fifty years before that. There's a lot of ambiguous statements there.
a complete list from wikipedia: "1960–1969[edit]
1962 – Thailand. The Third Marine Expeditionary Unit landed on May 17, 1962 to support that country during the threat of Communist pressure from outside; by July 30, the 5,000 marines had been withdrawn.[RL30172]
1962 – Cuba. Cuban Missile Crisis On October 22, President Kennedy instituted a "quarantine" on the shipment of offensive missiles to Cuba from the Soviet Union. He also warned Soviet Union that the launching of any missile from Cuba against nations in the Western Hemisphere would bring about U.S. nuclear retaliation on the Soviet Union. A negotiated settlement was achieved in a few days.[RL30172]
1962–75 – Laos. From October 1962 until 1975, the United States played an important role in military support of anti-Communist forces in Laos.[RL30172]
1964 – Congo (Zaire). The United States sent four transport planes to provide airlift for Congolese troops during a rebellion and to transport Belgian paratroopers to rescue foreigners.[RL30172]
1965 – Invasion of Dominican Republic. Operation Power Pack. The United States intervened to protect lives and property during a Dominican revolt and sent 20,000 U.S. troops as fears grew that the revolutionary forces were coming increasingly under Communist control.[RL30172] A popular rebellion breaks out, promising to reinstall Juan Bosch as the country's elected leader. The revolution is crushed when U.S. Marines land to uphold the military regime by force. The CIA directs everything behind the scenes.
1967 – Israel. The USS Liberty incident, whereupon a United States Navy Technical Research Ship was attacked June 8, 1967 by Israeli armed forces, killing 34 and wounding more than 170 U.S. crew members.
1967 – Congo (Zaire). The United States sent three military transport aircraft with crews to provide the Congo central government with logistical support during a revolt.[RL30172]
1968 – Laos & Cambodia. U.S. starts secret bombing campaign against targets along the Ho Chi Minh trail in the sovereign nations of Cambodia and Laos. The bombings last at least two years. (See Operation Commando Hunt)
1970–1979[edit]
1970 – Cambodian Campaign. U.S. troops were ordered into Cambodia to clean out Communist sanctuaries from which Viet Cong and North Vietnamese attacked U.S. and South Vietnamese forces in Vietnam. The object of this attack, which lasted from April 30 to June 30, was to ensure the continuing safe withdrawal of American forces from South Vietnam and to assist the program of Vietnamization.[RL30172]
1972 - North Vietnam - Christmas bombing Operation Linebacker II (not mentioned in RL30172, but an operation leading to peace negotiations). The operation was conducted from 18–29 December 1972. It was a bombing of the cities Hanoi and Haiphong by B-52 bombers.
1973 – Operation Nickel Grass, a strategic airlift operation conducted by the United States to deliver weapons and supplies to Israel during the Yom Kippur War.
1974 – Evacuation from Cyprus. United States naval forces evacuated U.S. civilians during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.[RL30172]
1975 – Evacuation from Vietnam. Operation Frequent Wind. On April 3, 1975, President Ford reported U.S. naval vessels, helicopters, and Marines had been sent to assist in evacuation of refugees and US nationals from Vietnam.[RL30172]
1975 – Evacuation from Cambodia. Operation Eagle Pull. On April 12, 1975, President Ford reporte
Everyone knows what the NSA is about, but Snowden takes the operational details of the programs and gives them the Russians and Chinese.
Who is this 'everyone'? Because it sure didn't include me. I had no idea the NSA was trolling the whole internet or had cooperation from major IT giants. I didn't know they were spying on their own allies and friends. I didn't know GCHQ was collecting every scrap of traffic they could get their paws on and searching it for god knows what. I don't believe they are looking for terrorists because terrorists don't fight some technological war, they use disposable calling cards, disposable mobiles, cash, and improvised weapons.
So what the hell are the NSA and GCHQ looking for? Nothing is my guess, it's just military morons with a huge budget and no oversight. that budget should be reallocated where it might do some good, like education or paying down the national debt.
"2001 – On April 1, 2001, a mid-air collision between a United States Navy EP-3E ARIES II signals surveillance aircraft and a People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) J-8II interceptor fighter jet resulted in an international dispute between the United States and the People's Republic of China called the Hainan Island incident."
This is what you call a "major conflict"?
And the other world powers that have multicultural prime ministers and presidents are ... ? I feel like Obama's Peace Prize was more about transcending race and color finally among the world's super powers. France is super liberal but you'll never seen someone of Algerian descent as their prime minister.
The major cause of war/unrest in the world isn't skin color, it's religion. I'd be more interested in seeing an openly Atheist president than a black one but I'm not holding my breath on that happening in the USA anytime soon.
No sig today...
There are some very nice places in eastern Europe and some very nasty places in America. Eastern Europe isn't the communist era hell-whole some people seem to think it is.
Literally thousands of people are nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize every year. Nominating just means someone has sent in a letter suggesting them. Nomination is not in any way noteworthy.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Is it? That shows what you know about whats going on in the world could be written on the back of your single lonely braincell.
So the Nobel Peace Prize = "I HATE AMERICA" Prize.
Not really. It's meant to be a prize for making the world more peaceful. Giving it to Obama was nuts, and it's now not clear if this prize has any point any more.
No. Giving it to Obama was controversial. Giving it to Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin, and not giving it to Gandhi, now that was, is and will ever be nuts. Another nuts (read stupid) decision? Giving it to Al Gore while completely ignoring Holocaust savior and survivor Irena Sendler who saved 2,500 Jewish children during WII (acts for which she was detained, tortured, sentenced to death but miraculously survived.)
The Nobel Peace price not about peace. It's about political posturing.
Defence spending is the normal measure because troop numbers doesn't determine military strength.
China for example has a massive standing army but it doesn't have the logistical infrastructure to take them anywhere of interest (i.e. it has a relatively small navy right now that could do little to defend itself against the US) and this is entirely an issue of defence spending. Defence expenditure is the greater measure of military effectiveness and hence why it's the key measure of military size and strength. In 30 years time for example if the US has an all drone robo-army and only 20,000 people to run it that doesn't make them less weak than an army of 100,000 but no counter to the drones and hence that 100,000 gets slaughtered.
Major conflict normally means a conflict that spreads beyond it's own borders and/or involving a sizeable force. A small scale military incursion by special forces to rescue a hostage from Somali pirates would not be a major conflict, but a raid into Somalia and some degree of occupation as in the 90s would. It is quite arbitrary but not so much so as to invalidate the GP's point - it's pretty easy to tell which conflicts would be classed as major in common parlance. Since World War II it'd include things like Korea, the Cold War, Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq x2, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia.
This is the way the terms are used in the media and have been for a long long time and across the globe so it's not unreasonable for the GP to use them as he has and in no way invalidates his point.
While there's no denying that many wars have been fought under the guise of religion; I'm sure people can make war just fine (and they have in the past) without religion.
Going to an atheist president won't help either. Officially atheist regimes were some of the biggest killers in the last century.
League of Militant Atheists
The Black Book of Communism
The Black Book of Communism - (book review) by Daniel J. Mahoney
The Black Book of Communism is one of those rare books that really matters. It is the first systematic and comparative analysis of the "crimes, terror and repression" that accompanied Communism everywhere and that seemed to define its "genetic code." The book's centerpiece is a relentlessly documented narrative of political violence and repression in the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, drawing on extensive archival materials made available to researchers since the collapse of Communist rule in 1991. But The Black Book also contains absorbing accounts of Communist repression in Eastern Europe, Asia, and the Third World.
The Soviet Story (2008)
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Giving him the prize would also 'save the Nobel Peace Prize from the disrepute that incurred by the hasty and ill-conceived decision to award U.S. President Barack Obama' the prize, according to professor Stefan Svallfors
Save the Nobel Peace Prize from disrepute? Too little too late dumbass. To the Stefan Svallfors of the world, where the hell were you when the Nobel Prize was given to Arafat and Rabin, when it was given to Al Gore over Irena Sendler, or when it was never given to Gandhi?
Svallfor's motion has nothing to do with reputation or morality. It's about political posturing. I'm sure and certain that there are people other than Snowden more deserving of an actual peace price that actually matters. I mean, Snowden was more than willing to go on asylum in Venezuela or Cuba, hardly bastions of democracy and decency. People deserving of a true peace price (Gandhi for instance) would never had contemplated such a cognitive dissonant option, regardless of consequences.
Allow me to dissect your argument and prove why it is entirely irrelevant.
I understand that many might not approve of spying and the NSA, but Snowden was a professional working for them via the contractor Booz Allen.
Who else would know the facts of the program? Who else could provide this information? It had to be somebody "inside". Had these accusations come from some guy on the street they would have been ignored as yet another crackpot conspiracy theory. Whistle-blowing on illegal activities always comes from a man on the inside.
Everyone knows what the NSA is about,
There were long suspicions of "what the NSA is about" but no proof, and the rule of law is that proof is necessary to convict. Prior to Snowden's release, any accusations of mass surveillance of US citizens leveled at the NSA were scoffingly disregarded and without evidence it was impossible to proceed. Thanks to Snowden, these accusations can no longer ignore the accusations (they may ignore the orders to stop, sadly).
but Snowden takes the operational details of the programs and gives them the Russians and Chinese.
Snowden released the details of the illegal and un-Constitutional programs to the /press/. You make it sound as if he snuck up to the Russian ambassador and passed secrets on to only them, which is hardly the case. Yes, the Russians now are aware of the program (most likely, the ones in power who actually worried about such things probably had a good idea of the capability of those programs already anyway, but that's beside the point). But more importantly, the US citizenry know about it as well. Ultimately, they are the only ones who can legally force a change. That other nations may now know of these programs is a side effect and - idealistically - irrelevant anyway. After all, illegal programs should be stopped so any intelligence gained about them becomes useless.
Snowden may be a "traitor" to the /people/ in the NSA, but our loyalty should not lie towards individuals but to the law and ideals that define our nation. Snowden obeyed those principles while other agents turned a blind eye or actively pursued these unconstitutional activities. He's far more a patriot than they.
No, they incarcerate more. Racism is unfortunately worldwide.
"Black prisoners make up 15% of the prisoner population and this compares with 2.2% of the general population – there is greater disproportionality in the number of black people in prisons in the UK than there is in the United States."
21st Century Renaissance Man
Oh please, you just sound like a retard who knows nothing outside of the US when making statements like that. And the focus on "race" is also a typical US thing. What about a female president or a gay one or even an atheist one?
Belgium has a gay prime minister who is the son of two Italian immigrants.
Germany has a female chancellor.
Great Britain had a female prime minister decades ago.
I can't count the number of countries that have atheist prime ministers/presidents.
There a dozens of other examples if you care to search for them. None of which make those leaders eligible for a Nobel Peace prize.
Yeah but the US president deserves a nobel peace prize just because he's black? What an achievement!
USA! USA! USA!
Hey, we haven't been at war in almost 70 years. That's saying something, right?
. . . right?
I thought so too, but it appears to be wrong :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll
Defense spending is one measure, there are plenty of others that matter. Number of troops, number of divisions, number of aircraft, number of missiles. The readiness of those units and equipment. The technology levels. They all play a part in assessing the strength of a nation's military.
China has been significantly increasing their military spending, and the size of their navy. They have a plan to build a number of aircraft carriers. The Chinese fleet has been taking part in anti-piracy patrols around Somalia which is giving them experience in extended naval deployments. China has been encroaching on the territory of its neighbors, trying to take control of various islands.
China is likely to become an increasingly formidable adversary as times passes.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
You may want to stop drinking the Ghandi koolaid brought to you by Western Civilisation. From what I can tell (which is probably very biased as well), Ghandi isn't seen in some parts of India (Tamil Nadu, in my experience) as the great saviour of the nation as he is hailed by the media in the rest of the world.
He was someone who looked down on a number of castes, was an incredible imperialist, and hence very loyal to the British Empire. He didn't fight apartheid in South Africa because he believed the Whites were wrong, he fought it because he believed "clean Indians" were above "uncivilized races".
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/ghandi.htm
http://www.trinicenter.com/WorldNews/ghandi5.htm
http://www.trinicenter.com/oops/gandhi2.html
Also, from Velu Annamalai's recommended readings regarding Gandhi:
Ambedkar, B.R. What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables. Bombay: Thacker, 1945.
Annamalai, Velu. Sergeant-Major M.K. Gandhi. Bangalore: Dalit Sahitya Akadiy, 1995.
Assisi, Francis. "Gandhi's Links with South Africa Examined." India West, 28 Sep 1990: 45.
Assisi, Francis. "Mahatma Gandhi's Links with SA Blacks Questioned." News India, 28 Sep 1990: 1.
Assisi, Francis. "Two New Books on Gandhiji." India West, 28 Sep 1990: 45.
Das, Nani Gopal. Was Gandhiji a Mahatma? Calcutta: Dipali Book House, 1988.
Edwards, Michael. The Myth of the Mahatma. London: Constable, 1986.
Gandhi, Mohandas K. Untouchability. Edited by Bharatan Kumarappa. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1954.
Grenier, Richard. The Gandhi Nobody Knows. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1983.
Grenier, Richard. "The Gandhi Nobody Knows." Commentary (Mar 1983): 59-72.
Huq, Fazlul. Gandhi: Saint or Sinner? Foreword by V.T. Rajshekar. Bangalore: Dalit Sahitya Akadiy, 1991.
Kapur, Sudarshan. Raising Up a Prophet: The African-American Encounter with Gandhi. Boston: Beacon Press, 1992.
Rajshekar, V.T. Hinduism, Fascism and Gandhism: A Guide to Every Intelligent Indian. Bangalore: Dalit Sahitya Akadiy, 1984.
Rajshekar, V.T. Why Godse Killed Gandhi? Bangalore: Dalit Sahitya Akadiy, 1986.
Rajshekar, V.T. Clash of Two Values: Mahatma Gandhi and Babasaheb Ambedkar (The Verdict of History). Bangalore: Dalit Sahitya Akadiy, 1989.
This idiocy is "5, Insightful"?
The major cause of war/unrest in the world isn't skin color, it's money.
FTFY.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
The major cause of war/unrest in the world isn't skin color, it's religion
No. Religion has been used in the past in the same way "the war on terror" is used now. It's a way to rally people against a seemingly powerful, brutal and subhuman enemy.
I know about the Physics one, not much about the rest:
1) In 2009 it was given to 2 guys from Bell Labs put pressure on Alcatel and prevent them from closing down the labs.
2) in 2008 it was given to 3 people who worked on stuff that was supposed to get tested at the Large Hadron Collider as a last resort to put pressure on politicians and prevent them from shutting it down.
3) In 2004 it was given to 3 guys who again worked on LHC-related stuff. The LHC was supposed to start running that year, but we all know that it went over budget and 5 years late.
So at least one of the science prizes is used simply as a plug for funding holes.
So basically, you consider any deployment of US troops for ANY reason to be a major engagement?
You're retarded.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I had no idea the NSA was trolling the whole internet or had cooperation from major IT giants. I didn't know they were spying on their own allies and friends.
Well, for me at least, the push to get people's data onto the internet and off of their own hard drives was a red flag to me. Even if it wasn't the NSA/CIA/FBI/DHS specifically, there seemed an oddly timed shift, cohesive shift to "the cloud", in order to solve problems that, in many cases, had been solved for some time. Personally, I suspected corporate profits and data mining for marketing data with the side bonus of Uncle Sam making the occasional offer Apple/Amazon/Google/Microsoft/Facebook couldn't refuse.
We might not have KNOWN that the government specifically had their own spy network that would make the KGB jealous, but trusting that the United States Government would both pass the Patriot Act and let multibillion dollar companies amass huge amounts of data on their citizens and say "We'll have to acquire a search warrant and follow due process every time we want data" is a level of optimism that doesn't add up to reality.
Power, actually, the addiction to it, and the associated mental problems.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
"Religion".
I don't think you understand what that word means, yet like so many religious people, try to spread it around to every context to poison any argument.
Also, of course there are a lot of militant atheists out there. The same way there are/were a lot of militant "black people" out there. Guess what? When people trod all over you, threaten you, treat you like second class citizens, and impose their will (via legislation and political power) on you -- you're probably going to be a tad mother fucking militant.
"Stop being intolerant of my intolerance you assholes! C'mon guys!"
Your single example isn't proving much.
The fact of the matter is that atheist killer regimes need to base their killing in reason. Of course even atheists can be assholes and say 'kill em all because they are enemies', but they cannot resort to 'they must die because it is the will of [deity] and we must obey if we want to go to [good afterlife]'.
Notice how even your Wikipedia-link says this: "it led a concerted effort telling Soviet citizens that religious beliefs and practices were "wrong" and "harmful", and that "good" citizens ought to embrace a scientific, atheistic worldview" (my emphasis)
Religion can make a plethora of irrational 'reasons' for wishing other people dead perfectly valid to its followers. It also has pretty effective fear-mongering strategies: eternal burning and suffering sounds pretty uncomfortable. If you can avoid that by torching a few heretics, why even think twice?
Atheists can only make you fear things that could actually exist and even then, they have to work to make you believe that those things have a non-negligible chance of happening.
Yeah but the US president deserves a nobel peace prize just because he's black? What an achievement!
To be fair, I think it was actually because he isn't Bush.
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
The 4.8% are the percentage of black men that are in prison. Your 15% are the percentage of UK prisoners that are black. You can't compare these two numbers directly.
"Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Maybe the PATRIOT ACT has made you think these kinds of writings are particularly unamerican? Or you could just accept the fact that Snowden's acts are just as american as were the actions of founding fathers of the United States; who were also temporarily considered traitors.
...and I'm sure, all over the world, Edward Snowden has a higher approval rating than NSA.
Also consider that now Snowden has higher approval rating than... US Congress and Barack Obama
Now, how were you supposed "to institute a new Government"? Oh you can't. And if you'd even become interested about it the government would know about it; thanks to PRISM.
"whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
I think Snowden is well worth one Nobel Peace Prize.
Citation
21st Century Renaissance Man
'The major cause of war/unrest in the world isn't skin color, it's religion.'
I would suggest that the main cause is any ideology with its unwavering faith in its rightness. Religion just happens to be the most pernicious, unreasonable, and widespread form.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
The only people who hate America, are those who would destroy the values outlined in the Bill of Rights. People like Snowden who act to protect the Bill of Rights, are patriots and heros. People who support the US no matter what it does, wrong or right, are mere amoral sociopathic nationalists.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
One thing I do think has been helpful is that the current debates have broken across once impenetrable ideological boundaries; people usually on opposite sides of the political divide are finding themselves agreeing with each other. It's forcing people on all sides to focus on the facts and issues rather than cling to ideology..
Instead of Democrat vs Republican, it is now Government vs The People. Isn't it nice how an adversarial government unites us?
Yet you pick 9 of the 100+ recipients.
I have no additional info/argument regarding Gandhi, but had to say I first read this as "Why Goatse Killed Gandhi?"
Yeah but the US president deserves a nobel peace prize just because he's black? What an achievement!
To be fair, I think it was actually because he isn't Bush.
That assessment turned out to be somewhat incorrect.
Just want to point out that most of the comments here are comparing this to Obama's award. Snowden has been NOMINATED but not awarded. It turns out a fairly large number of people have the ability to nominate recipients: http://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/index.html
This really isn't news. It's more comment trolling by slashdot -- and they've been doing a very good job of it lately.
Like Stalin?
Being Religious or Atheist doesn't make you a better person. Being a better person makes you a better person. I could see an "evangelical" Atheist president, really making lives difficult for religious folks, just as much as the "evangelical" Religious president makes life difficult for non-religious folks.
The unrest in terms in the name of religion, is only because they figure that will be the best way to get the masses behind them. No Religion they will find something else to go under, political party, ideology, location... People will find ways to be bad to each other no matter what.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Any assertions that so-and-so "has been nominated for a Nobel prize" are unverifiable. Anyone can claim to have nominated anyone, but there's not way to know if they're telling the truth, because nominations can be made only by nominators invited by the Nobel committee, and the identity of the nominators and their nominations are kept secret for fifty years. See Nomination FAQ:
"Q: Has X been nominated as a candidate for the Nobel Prize?
A: Information about the nominations, investigations, and opinions concerning the award is kept secret for fifty years.
Q: What about the rumours circling around the world about certain people being nominated for the Nobel Prize this year?
A: Well, either it's just a rumour, or someone among the invited nominators has leaked information. Since the nominations are kept secret for 50 years, you'll have to wait until then to find out."
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Ah! But that just means that the decisions rendered by the remainder are closer to being unanimous! And, obviously, the more unanimous the ruling, the more legal the behavior!
I care about correcting the actual problem and by being inaccurate with this discussion it diverts attention from the true problem. Stating it is illegal when it has been made legal by the Patriot Act (through Congress) and FISA (through case law) makes it sound like we can simply go and find the "people" who did the dirty work and put them away and all will be good again. The problem, as I see it, is that our elected officials (and appointed officials by Chief Justice Roberts) have made legal something which the populous clearly thinks should not be. The solution is NOT going on a witch hunt within the NSA but demanding that these laws be revoked, the FISA courts arguments be made public and allow those affected to be represented in any court making decisions affecting them. Removing the head of the NSA (which should also be done) does not solve the underlying problem.
Because if you're black and don't, it means you're not supporting your race and you're "the man".
If you're white and don't, it means you're a race hater.
Don't ask it to make sense, politically manipulative rhetoric doesn't always make sense.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Oh, my. Your post has been up for more than a minute, and not down modded to hell? Wow.
Must be upvotes from Civilization players, we've known the real Gandhi for some time.
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
Atheism is another religion, IMO. They strongly believe that there are no gods; without evidence (which is likely impossible to achieve) to prove it. Agnostics are willing to accept that they will probably never know what is beyond our very limited ability to perceive the workings of the universe. Maybe there is a supreme being. Maybe there are lots of them. Maybe the universe is a cold, calculating machine with no creator. We may never know for sure, and that just makes the universe all the more mysterious and exciting. So, if the choice of leader is going to be based on religion in this world of many religions, I'd prefer a leader who is agnostic. having said that, I'm sure that agnostics are just as capable of governing badly as anyone else. What I would like to see is that religion and state continue to separate from each other. If there is one thing that this great big Western democratic experiment has shown us, it's that the more tolerant we are of our neighbors' differences, the happier everyone is.
"A man's faults are those of his generation, his geniuses his own." --Goethe.
If you are waiting for a perfect man to give the prize to, you will never find one. Gandhi, for all his faults, still implemented the ideas of peaceful protests in ways that were later followed by the civil rights protests. He put his life on the line to defend the principles of peace, which is more than I've ever done. It's easy to sit here and criticize from the comfortable view of perspective, but if you were in Gandhi's time, living where he grew up, would you have any of his good traits?
Great men, like Thomas Jefferson, are rarely great because they are flawless. Jefferson owned slaves, was a coward, slept with his slave, was sometimes clueless; yet given all his weaknesses, look what he accomplished! It is inspiring that men with such weaknesses can accomplish so much, because surely we are all full of weaknesses. But we don't have to be limited by them, it is up to us.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You completely missed the point that was made.
When you persecute people and infringe upon them, it is necessary for their own good and their own existence to push back. Do you think gay people like spending so much of their life fighting for gay rights and equal treatment under the Constitution and the safety of not being beat to death on the street for simply being gay? Or do you think they would rather just have the equality and the safety of every other human being and carry on with the rest of their life?
Those "uppity gays" and "uppity negroes" and "militant atheists" that religious people usually say "should just shut the fuck up if they don't believe, because then it doesn't concern them" are "uppity" and "militant" precisely because they have to be active in fighting against the way they are treated, dismissed, and impacted by those who are intolerant.
Of course, not everyone can afford the time or personal/professional risk of being militant. Thankfully, there are those that make it their life-long cause to do that for the rest of them.
It is also hypocritical to call people "militant" who are just standing up for their rights and pushing back against your imposition upon society. I would say the "militant" ones are those who are using law and mob-rule to impose their religion upon politics, government, education, law, and all of society. Making comments about people being "animals" based on the tone of their skin or suggesting we should murder them so they "can meet their maker and find out how wrong they are about religion". THAT is militant.
It's a rather perverse and sick tactic to push and bully someone pretty much forever and then, when they stand up for themselves, shout "he's being intolerant of me!" (or, in some cases, trying to discredit lack of belief by claiming it is as much a religion as belief -- when it is the non-existence of belief and nothing more).
I imagine there were a lot of dudes, like yourself, back in the 1960s talking about how "all them negroes are actin' like nutjobs with all that marchin' and militant sitting in the front of the bus and drinking from white fountains and shit". (I am not trying to implicate you as a racist or anything, but am just drawing parallels between the attitude and terms exhibited by those in multiple situations to dismiss, diminish, and denigrate other segments of society who are actively demanding fair treatment).