7 ms·
Give Manning and Snowden the Nobel Peace Prize
- znowi 13y agoI don't think diligent servants of the US have the guts to do that. Besides, they already awarded it to Obama in 2009 for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- unhe 13y agolol... people still think the Nobel goes to the righteous.... lets remember Obama got a nobel for sending troops to Irak.
- evadne 13y agoTake the 2009 one back first, dudes.
- WestCoastJustin 13y agoFor those who do not know, the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to U.S. President Barack Obama for his "extraordinary efforts" to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize
- Millennium 13y agoMeh. 2007 was way more ridiculous. The Nobel Peace Prize has become so overloaded in recent years that either it's time to endow some new prizes (and let the Peace Prize actually be about, you know, PEACE again) or end the thing entirely. Frankly, I think there's some value in having an actual peace prize, so I would rather see the former happen.
- WestCoastJustin 13y agoFor those who do not know, The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Al Gore "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change". [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Nobel_Peace_Prize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Nobel_Peace_Prize
- mikemoka 13y agoWe need people like them in every single country if we want to live in a world actually guided by public interest and not by the most powerful of the particular interests.
- hnha 13y agoI would feel utterly ridiculed and belittled if I was a whistleblower and I would be put among the previous awardees. Why is the Nobel prize so prestigious?
- andrewcooke 13y agoi suspect it was seen as a useful tool to bash communism. it was useful, and so promoted.
- nostrademons 13y agoBecause yay money! Yay speaking engagements! Yay getting a parking space in Berkeley!
- gre 13y agoHe'd never be able to use the parking space. What a waste.
- GFischer 13y ago"Yay getting a parking space in Berkeley!" I had to look up that one :) . It's only for Nobel laureates who work in Berkeley. Apparently the University of Chicago offers its Nobel Prize winners in economics free lunch at the Business School cafeteria. http://www.metafilter.com/108251/The-golden-parking-pass http://www.metafilter.com/108251/The-golden-parking-pass
- hosh 13y agoIt's time. No more secrets. Security and privacy are driven by fear and vulnerability. Information and intelligence gives a party leverage, an advantage -- and these too are also driven by fear and vulnerability. These are burdens we don't need anymore. Much of the concepts and frame around civilization is in relation to barbarism and keeping order, of Rule of Law trumping Rule of Power, of fairness and equality. These notions are at the end of life, and we need to be reaching for something better.
- northwest 13y agoNo! Tell Obama to forward his.
- mtgx 13y agoI think it would help, because it would make it a lot harder for others to associate them with spies or something without getting ridiculed. I'm also hoping the next US president commits to giving Manning (and Snowden depending on the situation then) pardon. If I was a civil libertarian running for president, and I'd want to show real proof that I'm committed to a much more transparent government, and the roll back of the surveillance state - I'd start with that promise, and use it in my campaign, and say my first task as a president would be to pardon Manning.
- greyman 13y agoI don't fully agree regarding Manning. He revealed diplomatic cables, which was basically a work of U.S. diplomats, who have been writing "honest" assessments from inside those countries, under the condition that it remains secret. In my opinion, it was unfair to the U.S. gov that it was published - and I say this as a non-American. If leaking this should be automatically pardoned, we would first need a completely different model of how foreign diplomacy should work. (But I agree the life-time sentence is too harsh). Snowden case is different. (I also don't like that those two guys are mentioned together).
- rjsamson 13y agoAgreed. It seems to be a bit of an unpopular opinion, but what Snowden did and what Manning did are entirely different, and lumping Snowden in with Manning detracts from the careful and considered manner in which Snowden has conducted the leaks.
- mpyne 13y agoIt shouldn't be an unpopular opinion, as Snowden was careful to note in his very first interview how his actions were different from Manning's.
- nilved 13y agoThe same award that was given to the person who's actively prosecuting them? Why would they want their name next to that piece of shit?
- nostrademons 13y agoFWIW, this happens all the time: In 1927 Ferdinand Buisson (France) and Ludwig Quidde (Germany) shared it "for contributions to Franco-German popular reconciliation". In 1973 Henry Kissinger (US) and Le Duc Tho (North Vietnam) shared it for the cease fire of the Vietnam war. In 1978 Anwar Saddat (Egypt) and Menachem Begin (Israel) shared it for the Camp David accords. In 1993 Nelson Mandela and Frederik Willem de Klerk (South Africa) shared it for the end of apartheid In 1994 Yasser Arafat (Palestine), Yitzhak Rabin, and Shimon Peres (Israel) shared it for...well, bringing peace between Israel and Palestine, except that hasn't exactly happened yet. The Peace Prize has always been somewhat aspirational - it's a way not only to reward accomplishments toward world peace, but also to shame & goad people in power into working toward a more peaceful world. Obama's prize was very much in that vein: it sent the signal "We like where you're going, so you better keep it up and live up to the award you just won." There's nothing contradictory about giving it to his opponents as well.
- freerobby 13y agoThe irony is even more inescapable than that. It was founded by a guy who invented explosives and, who only created the prize after reading an incorrect reporting of his own death and being frustrated at how he was eulogized. > The obituary stated, Le marchand de la mort est mort ("The merchant of death is dead")[1] and went on to say, "Dr. Alfred Nobel, who became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before, died yesterday."[11] Alfred was disappointed with what he read and concerned with how he would be remembered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Nobel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Nobel
- jacquesm 13y agoMaybe we could misreport a few more deaths? Sounds like an excellent way to get people to realize they're jerks.
- tome 13y agoIt's unlikely to happen, but it's not actually impossible. However the Peace Prize is not particularly meaningful.
- methehack 13y agoI'd give it to Snowden; Manning I'm not so sure about. I may be alone on this one, but I think Snowden and Manning are very different. I think Manning's actions were a lot sloppier than Snowden's. Yes, Manning courageously uncovered crimes, and that's to be acknowledged. But, in my opinion, he wasn't careful enough about the impact of what he was releasing, specifically all the diplomatic communications. He seemed to have a stance that all information should be public by definition. I don't agree with that. I'm too practical -- I don't see how that would work at all. Further, I honestly think it undermined the democratic process to indiscriminately make it all public. Maybe I should be blaming wikileaks for this approach. In contrast, Snowden has shown the world's people that it's on candid camera on the US tax payer's dime -- illegally and unbeknownst toa almost everyone, including most of Congress. What he's uncovered is fundamentally undemocratic and very, very dangerous. That's worth a blown whistle. In my opinion, it does a disservice to Snowden to lump Manning together with him.
- joshlegs 13y agoagreed. Manning is a totally different story, I think. The stuff he released didn't do much to protect innocent people, etc. Snowden I could stand behind. That said, it would be just awesome if Manning got the Nobel Peace Prize, just, what, 5 years after Obama did?
- freerobby 13y agoTo make this point even further, a lot of what Manning leaked were mundane diplomatic cables of no national security or criminal consequence (e.g. Clinton discussing how they book frequent flier miles for diplomats). In these instances he was merely a saboteur of otherwise private conversations.
- paul9290 13y agoI disagree as Manning's action prompted the Arab Spring, which continues on in many Middle Eastern countries. More democratic Middle Eastern countries is better for the US and for citizens of those countries. Snowden in my eyes revealed and reminded us what we already learned back in 2006. Though he revealed the size and scope of the US surveillance program and inner linings.
- adrianlmm 13y agoWhy does Snowden deserves it?
- northwest 13y agoIs this a serious question?
- adrianlmm 13y agoYes, what is the argument?
- mpyne 13y agoWell, he increased international tensions between the U.S. and E.U., the E.U. and Latin America, Latin America and the U.S., Russia and the U.S., and finally the U.S. and China. If we say that increasing international tensions is a way to make peace between nations more likely then I say why not, might as well go for it.
- northwest 13y agoHe gave planet Earth an important wake-up call: Democracy is about to be shot in the head. (And personally, I don't think we should expect more whistle blowers in the coming years, because the NSA sure as hell will make sure it will never happen again, so this makes this moment even more important.) He did all this showing us that he's ready to be tortured and die for this cause. EDIT: This is history being written. What happens now and what does not will define the future we and our children will have. I thought this was 100% obvious.
- nilved 13y agoTruthfully, we already knew just about everything Snowden leaked except for the the name PRISM. But it was through his leak that it got on mainstream news.
- D9u 13y agoIn my somewhat convoluted estimation, the Nobel Peace Prize has ceased to hold any special meaning since it was awarded to someone who never really did anything to earn it other than become elected to an office whereupon the very foundations of freedom have been increasingly attacked through the expansion of policies which that Nobel Laureate so vocally opposed during his campaign for office.
- davej 13y agoI agree with your estimation. It would still be very meaningful to give it to Manning/Snowden though. This is for the simple reason that it was given to Obama before and Obama validated the prize by attending the ceremony and giving a lecture in Oslo. The foundation made a big mistake by giving it to somebody who did nothing but win an election campaign. Giving it to Manning/Snowden would allow them to claw back some credibility as a progressive non-political organisation. It would also implicitly indicate to the world that they made a big mistake in 2009, it would take an organisation with strong character to make that decision.
- Millennium 13y agoI thought the Nobel Peace Prize was supposed to be about promoting peace, not sticking it to The Man. What Snowden and Manning did was far more along the lines of the latter than the former.
- drewblaisdell 13y agoThat is a bit reductive-- Snowden wouldn't be so out of place on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates
- ajb 13y agoA lot of people don't understand what the Nobel Peace Prize is for. It's not to recognize old guys who promoted peace during their life; it's to promote peace. Imagine that you have made some millions and you are deciding between starting the next ycombinator and using the money to promote peace. How would you go about the latter? Pretty much like the former: risky investments with a big potential payoff, only in peace rather than shares. Saying that giving the award to Obama or Kissinger was a mistake is like saying that YCombinator is stupid because most of their investments don't pay off. If they only gave money to companies which they knew were going to be successful, they wouldn't be having any effect on their success. So, Is it worth giving Manning and/or Snowden the Peace Prize? It would certainly focus the media's attention on them, but they have it already to some extent. It might work against the narrative that the securicrats are promoting. In some sense, Manning is a better candidate than Snowden: Manning released information which showed injustices of the Iraq and Afghan wars, whereas Snowden's releases are thus far an issue of whether domestic security is out of control. The Nobel remit covers the former; I'm not sure it covers the latter.
- nilved 13y ago> A lot of people don't understand what the Nobel Peace Prize is for. It's not to recognize old guys who promoted peace during their life; it's to promote peace. Wikipedia and the majority of these comments disagree with this -- are you certain?
- ajb 13y agoWell, the fact that Nobel specified that the prize should be awarded "for work done in the preceding year" certainly argues that he didn't intend to wait for the judgement of history.