Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy

Edward Snowden Nominated For Nobel Peace Prize 719

Posted by samzenpus
from the and-the-prize-for-best-way-to-quit-your-job-goes-to dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Edward Snowden Nominated For Nobel Peace Prize

Comments Filter:
  • Definitely... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Smivs (1197859) <smivs@smivsonline.co.uk> on Monday July 15, 2013 @08:52AM (#44283149) Homepage Journal
    a good idea. This would send a positive message to arrogant governments everywhere.
  • Peace Prize (Score:5, Insightful)

    by benjfowler (239527) on Monday July 15, 2013 @08:56AM (#44283183)

    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.

  • by RetiredMidn (441788) on Monday July 15, 2013 @08:57AM (#44283191) Homepage

    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."

  • no, no it won't (Score:5, Insightful)

    by argStyopa (232550) on Monday July 15, 2013 @08:57AM (#44283193) Journal

    " '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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 15, 2013 @08:58AM (#44283201)

    "Not technically illegal".
    Gotta love when a justification starts with that one.

  • Re:no, no it won't (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:00AM (#44283217) Homepage Journal

    Yeah, the Nobel Committee went political at least 20 years ago, insofar as the Peace Prize, anyway. The science prizes are still fairly plausible, at least.

  • Re:Definitely... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Joce640k (829181) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:01AM (#44283223) Homepage

    Mod parent up.

    How the leader of one of the most warmongering nations on Earth got awarded a Nobel Peace Prize is beyond me.

  • hasty (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nitehawk214 (222219) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:02AM (#44283239)

    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?

  • by mitcheli (894743) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:02AM (#44283243)
    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?
  • Re:Peace Prize (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:03AM (#44283253)

    You forgot Yasser Arafat..

  • Re:Definitely... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gl4ss (559668) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:06AM (#44283265) Homepage Journal

    Mod parent up.

    How the leader of one of the most warmongering nations on Earth got awarded a Nobel Peace Prize is beyond me.

    well, he promised to shutdown gitmo, bring peace to middle east, stop collateral killings when killing people branded criminals without a trial etc.. you know, change. surely he should have managed to do at least one of them...

  • by ReallyEvilCanine (991886) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:08AM (#44283299) Homepage
    > Giving him the prize would also 'save the Nobel Peace Prize from the disrepute
    >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?

  • Re:Definitely... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by postbigbang (761081) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:08AM (#44283301)

    I fear Snowden will be a martyr. Plentiful people in power don't like it when their secretive ops and motives are exposed for the world to see. The sausage of politics is ugly enough. Snowden is a modern-day Sinclair Lewis in that regard.

    Obama's premature prize baffles me, save that in his own country, there are plentiful people in power that didn't want an individual outside of their control to take power. Given Obama's unfulfilled promises, they needn't have bothered in their worry.

  • Re:Definitely... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by K. S. Kyosuke (729550) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:10AM (#44283327)

    Even better, take Obama's away and give it to Snowden.

    If I were Snowden, I'd rather hang myself than to join the kind of people who actually got it. Who'd ever want to be associated with a bunch of scumbags?

  • Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 1s44c (552956) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:14AM (#44283371)

    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.

  • Re:Definitely... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 1s44c (552956) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:17AM (#44283399)

    How the leader of one of the most warmongering nations on Earth got awarded a Nobel Peace Prize is beyond me.

    They gave it to Obama because he wasn't Bush. They had the idea that because Obama wasn't Bush he would behave differently and step back on the warmongering.

    Turns out they were wrong.

  • Re:Nice (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:18AM (#44283413)

    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.

    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.

  • Re:Definitely... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 1s44c (552956) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:18AM (#44283417)

    He lied his ass off to get elected you mean? Just like every other elected politician.

  • by wonkey_monkey (2592601) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:19AM (#44283425) Homepage

    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.

  • Re:Definitely... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JackieBrown (987087) <dbroome@gmail.com> on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:19AM (#44283429)

    That's why you give prizes to people after they complete the task.

  • Re:Definitely... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jittles (1613415) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:21AM (#44283451)

    I fear Snowden will be a martyr. Plentiful people in power don't like it when their secretive ops and motives are exposed for the world to see. The sausage of politics is ugly enough. Snowden is a modern-day Sinclair Lewis in that regard.

    Obama's premature prize baffles me, save that in his own country, there are plentiful people in power that didn't want an individual outside of their control to take power. Given Obama's unfulfilled promises, they needn't have bothered in their worry.

    I"m surprised to see that you think that Obama was ever out of someones control. His meteoric rise to political power was so fast that I find it hard to believe he doesn't have some very rich and powerful people calling most of his shots. Did anyone really know his name prior to the 2004 Democratic Convention? I certainly had not really heard his name until the 2008 Democratic Primary began.

    In any event, I don't see how anyone can become a politician at that level in this country without being corrupt. Which is why we need to fix the system.

  • Re:Peace Prize (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JaredOfEuropa (526365) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:23AM (#44283467) Journal
    Arafat got the peace prize jointly with Peres and Rabin, specifically for entering into negotiations for peace (at Oslo IIRC) despite severe opposition from their own constituents. For each of them, maintaining a warlike stance would have been the easier political choice. In that light, the Prize was actually awarded to someone worthy for a change, even if very little came of it in the end.
  • Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mwvdlee (775178) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:23AM (#44283473) Homepage

    Is that because "peace" = "hate America" or "America" = "hate peace"?

  • by 1s44c (552956) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:25AM (#44283491)

    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?

  • Re:Definitely... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hendrikboom (1001110) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:27AM (#44283507)

    The Nobel peace prize, unlike the other Nobel prizes, s often given while a peace process is under way, as an encouragement. Yes, they often fail.

  • Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:28AM (#44283521)

    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?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:30AM (#44283533)

    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).

  • Re:Definitely... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pixelpusher220 (529617) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:30AM (#44283539)
    Obama's premature prize was a clear FU to Bush and his Administration; that's why Obama got it, with the hope that he'd not follow the same path. Unfortunately that latter part didn't work out.
  • by mwvdlee (775178) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:30AM (#44283547) Homepage

    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?

  • the Peace Prize shall 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.

    Seems that all he has done is piss off the government and some of it's people for one nation.

  • Re:Definitely... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SJHillman (1966756) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:34AM (#44283581)

    To be fair, a good majority of presidential candidates go unknown by the general public until they run for that office. Of course there are exceptions, such as Hilary Clinton, because she was the First Lady (she is a lady, right?) or they're involved in some major news headlines. But seriously, how many of our current 535 Congressman (assuming all the posts are currently filled, I haven't checked) or 50 state governors can you name? Especially ones that don't represent you? And those are just the two major pools presidential candidates come from, but they could come from many other places. So it should be no surprise that you've never heard of someone if they haven't given you a reason to.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:34AM (#44283603)

    Even better, impeach Obama give Snowden the Presidency, then you'll have a president that ACTUALLY UPHOLDS THE CONSTITUTION.

  • Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by substance2003 (665358) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:37AM (#44283637)
    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?
  • Re:Nice (Score:1, Insightful)

    by DogDude (805747) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:39AM (#44283665) Homepage
    Considering the fact that America is the instigator if not the outright aggressor of most modern wars today, yes, I happen to think that Peace comes from opposing the United States.
  • Re:Nice (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SJHillman (1966756) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:40AM (#44283675)

    "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"?

  • Re:Definitely... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by postbigbang (761081) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:41AM (#44283681)

    Odd that you should cite this.

    Obama replaced Ryan, an Illinois senatorial scumbag. Illinois is a hotbed of political chicanery.

    I can recall probably 120 reps, half the senate and each and every president and VP. My faculties are different than most Americans. I voted for Obama in both presidential elections based on hope, the hope that there might be some political change away from the corruption we now face in the US. I wanted to see the vacuous wars stanched to all parties satisfaction. I hoped for regulation that was gleefully stanched during the Bush and Clinton administrations. I wanted to see people come together, not be compartmentalized and marginalized. Didn't happen. We're barely holding it together, but it's been both been better and worse during my long life.

    All the altrusitic things I was taught in grade school and high school civics classes have been stanched by the motives of greed and fear. Once in a long while, common sense takes hold, but only for brief moments. Then something else happens. I fear for my grandchildren.

  • Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Joce640k (829181) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:41AM (#44283687) Homepage

    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.

  • Re:Nice (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Viol8 (599362) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:50AM (#44283769)

    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.

  • Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by luis_a_espinal (1810296) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:52AM (#44283791) Homepage

    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.

  • Re:I have an idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:52AM (#44283805)

    In light of Snowden's revelations, it is more than a little rich for Americans to say that foreigners should stay out of American affairs.

  • by RetiredMidn (441788) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:53AM (#44283813) Homepage

    It's more complex than I have time for here, but...

    To the extent that Snowden exposed the overreach of widespread data collection and surveillance of US citizens without probable cause, he may well be a hero.

    If he truly has information that could badly damage legitimate U.S. interests (something the Guardian reporter claims, which I think may be overblown), and if he is willing to share that directly (or even indirectly) with foreign governments specifically to inflict that damage, then I have a problem with that.

    There is a wide range of legitimate points of view about U.S. foreign policy, legitimacy of various techniques to protect national security, and so on. I respect many people's differing opinions on this. 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. That can't be bad.

  • Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gameboyhippo (827141) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:54AM (#44283831) Journal

    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.

  • Re:Definitely... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by postbigbang (761081) on Monday July 15, 2013 @10:00AM (#44283889)

    I, too, voted my goals. I wouldn't vote for Romney for dog-catcher.

  • by luis_a_espinal (1810296) on Monday July 15, 2013 @10:01AM (#44283897) Homepage

    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.

  • by Somebody Is Using My (985418) on Monday July 15, 2013 @10:03AM (#44283921) Homepage

    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.

  • Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sociocapitalist (2471722) on Monday July 15, 2013 @10:15AM (#44284051)

    The major cause of war/unrest in the world isn't skin color, it's money.

    FTFY.

  • Re:Definitely... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by timeOday (582209) on Monday July 15, 2013 @10:16AM (#44284069)
    Or did it? Compare Bush vs. Obama on raw body count, and it is nowhwere close. Like, a factor of 100.
  • Re:Nice (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BitZtream (692029) on Monday July 15, 2013 @10:20AM (#44284117)

    So basically, you consider any deployment of US troops for ANY reason to be a major engagement?

    You're retarded.

  • Re:Definitely... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by firex726 (1188453) <firex726.yahoo@com> on Monday July 15, 2013 @10:21AM (#44284121)

    Well TBH it has been tried but it'll need help from COngress, so it's not 100% Obama's fault. Of course what is his fault is promising something that he could not necessarily deliver on.

  • Re:Nice (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ultranova (717540) on Monday July 15, 2013 @10:22AM (#44284139)

    The major cause of war/unrest in the world isn't skin color, it's religion.

    Power, actually, the addiction to it, and the associated mental problems.

  • Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Seumas (6865) on Monday July 15, 2013 @10:26AM (#44284187)

    "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!"

  • Re:Nice (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dinfinity (2300094) on Monday July 15, 2013 @10:30AM (#44284239)

    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.

  • Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RaceProUK (1137575) on Monday July 15, 2013 @10:35AM (#44284299)

    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.

  • by colordev (1764040) on Monday July 15, 2013 @10:37AM (#44284331) Homepage
    Fact is Snowden sacrificed himself so that people would know about (what he considered) unconstitutional searches and universal violations of universal human rights [un.org]- right?

    "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.

    Also consider that now Snowden has higher approval rating than... US Congress [reason.com] and Barack Obama [jpupdates.com]

    ...and I'm sure, all over the world, Edward Snowden has a higher approval rating than NSA.

    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.

  • Re:Definitely... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GameboyRMH (1153867) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [hmryobemag]> on Monday July 15, 2013 @10:41AM (#44284377) Journal

    It may weaken an unfair advantage the western world had in international diplomacy through spying on foreign governments - something they shouldn't have had anyway IMO. Spying on foreign governments should only be done in war for strategic purposes. Saying that we have to be bad because the other guys are being bad is just rationalizing an awful race to the bottom. I'd say it's good that the leaks have shown that the western world is becoming more like the genuine authoritarian regimes and offer some chance of correcting it.

  • Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by anagama (611277) <obamaisaneocon@nothingchanged.org> on Monday July 15, 2013 @10:50AM (#44284497) Homepage

    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.

  • Re:Nice (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Aryden (1872756) on Monday July 15, 2013 @11:24AM (#44284949)
    Yet you pick 9 of the 100+ recipients.
  • Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mcvos (645701) on Monday July 15, 2013 @11:38AM (#44285131)

    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.

  • Re:Nice (Score:2, Insightful)

    by CAIMLAS (41445) on Monday July 15, 2013 @12:05PM (#44285475) Homepage

    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.

  • Re:Definitely... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gandhi_2 (1108023) on Monday July 15, 2013 @12:06PM (#44285483) Homepage

    That wasn't an accident.
    The US neither invented slavery, nor was the last country to give up slavery. The US was one of the few counties to fight the global slave trade on the high seas back before it was cool.

  • Re:Definitely... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tapspace (2368622) on Monday July 15, 2013 @12:51PM (#44286049)

    I mean, I don't know what to say. You fear for your grand chidren? Once in a long while "common sense takes hold?" You voted for Obama, wait for it... twice. Did you just not bother doing any research? His terribleness wasn't being thrown at you in the MSM, so you didn't bother to use your common sense (must not have had a very good grip in November)? Obama is not fundamentally different since this time one year ago.

    I'm not saying you should have voted for Romney, and before anyone says it, you were the one who threw your vote away, not us 3rd party voters.

  • Re:Nice (Score:4, Insightful)

    by phantomfive (622387) on Monday July 15, 2013 @02:16PM (#44287145) Journal
    "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.
  • Re:Definitely... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Monday July 15, 2013 @03:41PM (#44288129) Homepage Journal

    Then after he got elected, he found out what kind of people he had at gitmo. Probably learned all kinds of things about how the world works.

    The way the world works is that you don't get to claim that you're protecting due process while you're shitting on due process, and therefore you don't get to claim that you're fighting for freedom while you're not closing Guantanamo.

    Maybe Obama just figured out that your way isn't realistic even if it does play well in The Huffington Post.

    Well then, we need to shut the fuck up about freedom and human rights, because we don't actually believe in them.

  • by cffrost (885375) on Monday July 15, 2013 @04:11PM (#44288515) Homepage

    [...] Snowden was more than willing to go on asylum in Venezuela or Cuba, hardly bastions of democracy and decency.

    Edward Snowden's inability to find refuge from our gangster administration in any "friendly" democracy highlights the sacrifice he made — granting us an opportunity to reclaim our liberty in exchange for his own. We also get to witness the arrogance and hypocrisy with which our foreign relations are conducted — the Kafkaesque Bolivian flight kerfuffle demonstrated this to a degree well into the absurd.

  • Re:Nice (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Seumas (6865) on Monday July 15, 2013 @09:21PM (#44291447)

    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).

It is much easier to suggest solutions when you know nothing about the problem.

Working...