Edward Snowden Nominated For Nobel Peace Prize 719
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.'"
Definitely... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Definitely... (Score:5, Interesting)
Even better, take Obama's away and give it to Snowden.
Re:Definitely... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent up.
How the leader of one of the most warmongering nations on Earth got awarded a Nobel Peace Prize is beyond me.
Re:Definitely... (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:Definitely... (Score:5, Insightful)
He lied his ass off to get elected you mean? Just like every other elected politician.
Re:Definitely... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why you give prizes to people after they complete the task.
Re:Definitely... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Definitely... (Score:5, Interesting)
You haven't been to an American public school lately, have you? You get a prize for showing up (even if you don't). Then another prize for competing (regardless of effort), then another prize for the winning (you didn't lose, you just got fourth place out of four). And then everyone gets some pizza and calls it a day.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Damn, I went to school at the wrong time. My prize was not being beaten senseless in some sort of an attack with racial undertones, sometimes I didn't get to collect the prize...
Re: (Score:3)
You get a prize for showing up (even if you don't).
Well, everyone gets a prize so kids know the world has no racism, favoritism, classism, religiousim or sexualism. If they grew up knowing the truth, nobody would stay here and pay taxes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Definitely... (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Definitely... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Definitely... (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
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:Definitely... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Definitely... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Definitely... (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Definitely... (Score:4, Informative)
Once in a long while, common sense takes hold, but only for brief moments.
"Americans always do the right thing, once all other options have been exhausted." --Churchill
Re:Definitely... (Score:4, Insightful)
I, too, voted my goals. I wouldn't vote for Romney for dog-catcher.
Re: (Score:3)
We must profoundly disagree.
I expected more, and got less. That's my primary problem with him and his administration.
Re:Definitely... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Definitely... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Definitely... (Score:5, Funny)
Mod parent up.
How the leader of one of the most warmongering nations on Earth got awarded a Nobel Peace Prize is beyond me.
We will bleed the ground red with those who oppose our peace-efforts!
Re:Definitely... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Definitely... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Impeach Obama, Elect Snowden (Score:4, Insightful)
Even better, impeach Obama give Snowden the Presidency, then you'll have a president that ACTUALLY UPHOLDS THE CONSTITUTION.
Re: (Score:3)
You terrorist! What next, you'll be wanting someone that upholds the law, and is willing to adhere to globally agreed standards on human rights too.
Re:Definitely... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Peace Prize (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, Obama got the peace prize for being "not George W. Bush." That's a minor, but important distinction.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Peace Prize (Score:5, Insightful)
Two wrongs don't make a right (Score:4, Insightful)
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."
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know if it's so much to compensate as it is to give the US a very large, very high-visibility middle finger.
Which isn't to say that we couldn't use one...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Two wrongs don't make a right (Score:4, Interesting)
What sort of information are you awaiting that would make you not-ambivalent?
Re:Two wrongs don't make a right (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
no, no it won't (Score:5, Insightful)
" '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.
Re:no, no it won't (Score:4, Insightful)
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:no, no it won't (Score:5, Informative)
The Nobel Peace Prize and scientific Nobel prizes are decided on by completely different groups. The only thing they have in common is the word "Nobel". The scientific prizes are decided by the Swedish Academy of Sciences. The Peace prize is decided by an independent body, the Norwegian Nobel Committee.
The Nobel Peace Prize has always been political.
hasty (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Doesn't the winner need to... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're worried about disrepute? (Score:4, Insightful)
>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?
I have an idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I have an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Unless of course (Score:3)
Not better or safer (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
If there was a Nobel prize for good intentions, sure, give him that.
That is the current Nobel Peace Prize. Note the 2009 winner.
This is meaningless (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Stefan Svallfors is an idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Stefan Svallfors is an idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
[...] 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.
Nominated, not Awarded. (Score:5, Informative)
This really isn't news. It's more comment trolling by slashdot -- and they've been doing a very good job of it lately.
Re: (Score:3)
... programs that aren't covered by any Consitutional protection ....
Isn't this enough to make it illegal?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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:You have got to be kidding me (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: You have got to be kidding me (Score:4, Informative)
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.
About that "treason" thing... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You have got to be kidding me (Score:5, Insightful)
"Not technically illegal".
Gotta love when a justification starts with that one.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re:You have got to be kidding me (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Nice (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [raceandhistory.com]
http://www.trinicenter.com/WorldNews/ghandi5.htm [trinicenter.com]
http://www.trinicenter.com/oops/gandhi2.html [trinicenter.com]
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.
Re:Nice (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
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:5, Insightful)
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:Nice (Score:5, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org]
The Black Book of Communism [harvard.edu]
The Black Book of Communism - (book review) by Daniel J. Mahoney [harvard.edu]
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) [youtube.com]
Re:Nice (Score:4, Insightful)
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:4, Informative)
I thought so too, but it appears to be wrong :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll [wikipedia.org]
Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
The major cause of war/unrest in the world isn't skin color, it's money.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Nice (Score:4, Insightful)
Power, actually, the addiction to it, and the associated mental problems.
Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
"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)
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).
Re:Nice (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
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:4, Funny)
Well, what criteria do you propose? The content of their character? ROFLOL
Re: (Score:3)
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."
Re: (Score:3)
Citation [guardian.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Nice (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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 aroun
Re:Nice (Score:4, Insightful)
"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: (Score:3, Insightful)
So basically, you consider any deployment of US troops for ANY reason to be a major engagement?
You're retarded.
Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that because "peace" = "hate America" or "America" = "hate peace"?
Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
This idiocy is "5, Insightful"?
Re: What would Benjamin Franklin say about Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
"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 [reason.com] and Barack Obama [jpupdates.com]
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:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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 imp
Re: (Score:3)
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 ref
Re:Snowden is a traitor (Score:5, Insightful)
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.