Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Politics

Edward Snowden Nominated For Nobel Peace Prize 343

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the us-declares-war-on-norway dept.
SmartAboutThings writes "Edward Snowden has a chance of getting the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize, as two Norwegian members of the Parliament have nominated him — Baard Vegard Solhjell (a former environment minister) and Snorre Valen. So, the fact that members of the Norwegian Parliament have proposed him for the Nobel Peace Prize could improve his chance of winning. After all, if Obama got this prize, why wouldn't Snowden get it?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Edward Snowden Nominated For Nobel Peace Prize

Comments Filter:
  • by FranklinWebber (1307427) * <franklin@eutaxy.net> on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @01:03PM (#46100917) Homepage

    I'd like to nominate Dr. Thomas Neff (http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/14/01/29/0157208/megatons-to-megawatts-program-comes-to-a-close) as more deserving.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @01:09PM (#46101025)

    I thought the Peace Prizes to Gore and Obama to be the most asinine thing that the committee has ever done.

    To implicitly compare those two politicians to the likes of King or Gandhi just disgusts me.

    What next, giving one to Jethro Tull?!

  • They need (Score:5, Insightful)

    by waspleg (316038) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @01:10PM (#46101035) Journal

    to take away Obama's and give him that one. They should do it while playing the candidate Obama vs President Obama videos in the background.

  • Re:Great news! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @01:11PM (#46101045) Journal

    Obama got it because tbey wanted to slap George Bush in the face. He should have declined because that is beneath the presidency to participate in such an exercise.

    Although this case may also be seen as a slap at the president, at least Snowden wpuld arguably deserve it, if you approve of him.

  • by MobyDisk (75490) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @01:13PM (#46101057) Homepage

    As snarky as that comment is, it rings true. The impact of the Nobel Peace Prize has been diluted by awarding it to someone as an attempt to motivate them, rather than based on what they actually did. Perhaps if Obama goes on to earn that prize after the fact then it might restore the prize's meaning to some degree.

  • Incredible irony (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @01:14PM (#46101077)

    If he wins, then we'll have one Peace Prize winner being honored for resisting the authoritarianism of another Peace Price winner.

  • Obama (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thetagger (1057066) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @01:14PM (#46101079)

    Just about every human being that does not drone-strike weddings was a better choice than Obama.

    Congratulations to the Nobel Prize comittee for making such a particularly bad choice out of a universe of about 7 billion.

  • Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kamapuaa (555446) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @01:17PM (#46101107) Homepage

    Obama won the Peace Prize for being a president who wasn't Bush. Nobel prizes are an asinine political statement by a committee that's become reactionary anti-American and anti-China.

  • by Sockatume (732728) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @01:18PM (#46101125)

    I thought that you were supposed to keep any nominations for a Nobel Prize secret? I know that the Nobel committee keeps them sealed for something like 60 years but I have no idea whether it's a convention, a rule, or just simply not bothering to tell anyone on the nominator's end.

  • Re:Great news! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @01:20PM (#46101155)

    Maybe the committee has decided that they would like to have some credibility.

    The Nobel Peace Prize has LONG been without credibility; it's always been a tool to push some sort of agenda.

    2012 - The European Union? You mean the group that shouted how we should stop Ghadafi from defeating the rebels in Libya, dragged the US into a response and then backed off leaving the US the sole owner of a military intervention they didn't want? Especially after forming deals with Ghadafi that had lessened his grip and got him to give up nuclear programs and chemical weapons? Yeah, that turned out well.

    2009 - Barack Obama - all based on promises and rhetoric and no action... sure.

    2007 - Al Gore for promoting environmental awareness? That's kind of the wrong category.

    1994 - Yasser Arafat? He's done a lot to promote peace in the world.

    1973 - Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for the Paris Peace Accords - I'm sure the South Vietnamese really appreciated Le Duc Tho's peaceful process when he invaded and annexed their country.

    And where is Mahatma Ghandi? Where is Pope John Paul II? The Nobel Peace Price ceased being about "Peace" long ago and has simply been a tool to highlight the political agenda of a few Norwegian scientists.

  • AMEN! Unfortunately, if Obama can get one, any turncoat-calling-himself-whistleblower can get one, too.
    It's sad.

    Highly unlikely; only people with political influence get them. Obama got one for not being Bush; Snowden can likely get one for not being the NSA.

  • Re:As bad as Obama (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Em Adespoton (792954) <slashdotonly.1.adespoton@spamgourmet.com> on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @01:29PM (#46101293) Homepage Journal

    Snowden hasn't done a damn thing for peace. What he has done is cripple the ability of the west to gain intelligence.

    ...and I think we're all agreed that the West has a lot of room to improve in the intelligence department. Although I'd disagree -- Snowden has educated the west, and hopefully helped people make more intelligent decisions.

    Governments on the other hand, yes, they've been somewhat "crippled" if by crippled you mean "held accountable to their own charters and agreements".

    We all know from time on the school playground that the most peaceful times are when those with the power are so busy squabbling amongst each other that they don't have time to oppress everyone else. If western nations are spending their energy improving diplomatic relations, that means they're less likely to be spending that time on world domination.

  • Re:As bad as Obama (Score:5, Insightful)

    by iggymanz (596061) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @01:31PM (#46101319)

    You are confused, there is no notion of the USA's gathering intelligence to avoid terrorist attacks or wars.

    The federal government were watching the attackers of 9/11 to see what they would do. well, we saw what they did.

    The federal government used "intelligence" to justity a pointless invasion of Iraq (as aside note we supported Saddam and gave him money and dual use technnology to build the WMD he used to gas Iranians and Kurds)

    The CIA is using "intelligence" to protect their narcotics cash crops in Afghanistan, bombing competitors and protecting chosen drug lords.

    The federal government currently has FBI and DHS finding low IQ morons, losers with no ability to do anything, courting them for weeks while filling their heads with violent thoughts and ideas and then providing them with fake bombs. And then swooping in for arrests and headlines and congratulations all around for yet another blow in the "war on terror".

    This is the type of "intelligence" you are claiming is necessary? fuck you and all other shills for the US's corporate fascist government.

  • Re:As bad as Obama (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @01:32PM (#46101337) Homepage Journal

    Intelligence is critical... to avert wars.

    Right, but not in the way you think.

    Take the Syria conflict, for example - President Obama was preparing to use our soldiers and pilots as the "rebels" private air force, until the public became aware that said "rebels" were actually members of Al Qaeda. So, yes, intelligence averted the US entering yet another conflict, as well as arming our own enemies again - but it was the government who wanted to start the war in the first place.

    Sunshine is still the best disinfectant.

  • Re:As bad as Obama (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @01:32PM (#46101341)

    Hate Snowden all you like for whatever reason you like but that doesn't mean you can twist reality into something it's not.

    The reality is that a lot of the world has come together to realize that the super powers are conspiring against them. This has bonded many countries together while hurting the relationships that the U.S. and Britain have with the rest of the world. Unfortunately for your world view the U.S. and Britain are only small pieces of the world puzzle. I would also argue that honesty has always proven to be a better tool for long term piece than the constant lying that was going on.

  • Re:Not a fan. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Connie_Lingus (317691) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @01:36PM (#46101389) Homepage

    he was trusted to look the other way while the people he worked for were breaking the law?

    if he found out his bosses were, say, importing dope and selling it to kids to boost company profits, would you still be mad at him for "violating trust"?

    no? well then i say to you sir that you are a hypocrite.

  • Re:Great news! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Antipater (2053064) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @01:39PM (#46101433)

    I'm all for Snowden getting the prize. To bad it has been cheapened with some of the past awards.

    I'm not. I think giving it to Snowden would serve only as a repudiation of Obama's prize, and not as an actual reward for promoting peace. It would only cheapen the award further.

    It's the Nobel Peace Prize, not the Nobel Privacy Prize or the Nobel Stand-Up-To-Authority Prize. What Snowden did was good and needed and courageous, but it wasn't related to Peace or to saving lives. In fact, it's actually inflamed diplomatic tensions. How about giving it to that doctor in Africa who didn't get it in 2013, or the megatons-to-megawatts guy suggested above?

  • Re:As bad as Obama (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Immerman (2627577) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @01:43PM (#46101491)

    International war is not the only enemy to peace. So is a police state, where the government has declared war on its own populace. And we're getting dangerously close to a single executive order being able to turn our once-great nation into the most repressive police state the world has ever seen.

  • Re:Great news! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @01:43PM (#46101493) Homepage Journal

    And, you don't think that exposing an all-seeing police state has any bearing on peace?

  • Re:Great news! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @01:46PM (#46101539)

    "... He should have declined because that is beneath the presidency to participate in such an exercise."
    Yes, but it was NOT beneath Obama, was it?

  • by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @01:48PM (#46101569)

    > thought the Peace Prizes to Gore and Obama to be the most asinine thing that the committee has ever done.

    Concur 100% ! Considering Obama did fuck all to receive the prize, Snowden exposing the lies of the government most certainly deserves more then 1 medal !

  • Re:Great news! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by geminidomino (614729) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @01:51PM (#46101601) Journal

    He's a politician. What is?

  • Re:Great news! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kheldan (1460303) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @02:00PM (#46101737) Journal
    Mod idea up. Snowden may have opened a gigantic, planet-sized can of worms, but it was a festering, nasty-ass can of worms that needed opening. The one spark of non-cynicism that remains alive within me cheers on people like Snowden, and gives me hope that the human race can be saved from a descent into global fascism.
  • Re:Great news! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RabidReindeer (2625839) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @02:05PM (#46101815)

    Obama got it because tbey wanted to slap George Bush in the face. He should have declined because that is beneath the presidency to participate in such an exercise.

    Although this case may also be seen as a slap at the president, at least Snowden wpuld arguably deserve it, if you approve of him.

    The Nobel Peace Prize was originally established by someone who had created what he considered a horrible weapon of war to honor and encourage people who had worked to promote and enable world peace.

    Not for not being George W Bush, not even for uncovering a lot of contra-democratic practices. It is, after all, not a "democracy" prize. And by that standard Yasser Arafat actually is more entitled to it than either Obama or Snowden. Not by much, since while dealing peace with one hand, he still had the other under the table dealing war, as we later discovered, but at least to some degree.

    As to whether Obama should have turned it down specifically because it was awarded to slap GWB in the face, I'm not certain I'd go that far. We already knew that US Presidents cannot be looked to as exemplars of virtue.

    On the other hand, he really should have refused it for the simple reason that he hadn't done anything specifically to promote peace at the time. And that was before the drones.

  • Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kjella (173770) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @02:06PM (#46101833) Homepage

    The list of eligible planets have been on public display at the Nobel institute for the last 50 years, so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complains and it's far too late to start making a fuss about it now. And by on display I mean in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.

  • Re:Great news! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bob_super (3391281) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @02:11PM (#46101913)

    If you don't understand the Olso peace accords, and how Arafat shaking hands with a jew and setting up an official Palestinian office was a major peace achievement, you need better teachers.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @02:13PM (#46101937)

    They didn't award it to Obama for anything. They were trying to reward America for voting for a black President.

    A country with slavery as late as 1863, which had civil rights riots (and lynchings) in the 1960's, and which still has the Klan, which the same year had a party nominate Mr "Bomb bomb bomb Iran" and Mrs "Oh boy howdy", that country, that country, actually elected a black Democrat President.

    After seeing you re-elect GWB, not just elect him but re-elect him, do you realise how grateful the rest of the world was for any sign, no matter how small, that you weren't completely bat-shit fucking crazy?

    We were wrong, sure. But you have to see how desperate we were for any sign of sanity.

  • by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @02:14PM (#46101943)

    in a long long time.

  • Re:Great news! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AthanasiusKircher (1333179) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @02:24PM (#46102061)

    No, I actually don't. I think exposing an all-seeing police state has great implications for the rights of that state's citizens, but has very little bearing on life vs. death.

    Let me make the connections for you. Government surveillance and data collection does two things (among many others), depending on whether it's publicly known or not.

    If the government is running public surveillance and effectively acting like a police state (think the TSA), it convinces many people of a supposed necessity for "security" against some "unseen enemy." It's very easy to turn that fear against some random foreign nation, even when the connection in tenuous -- e.g., the Iraq war. The continuous feeling of "unease" that many Americans have by being continuously bombarded with messages like "You need to take your shoes and belt off and d the 'special pose' for the nudey scanners, or you could DIE even on a plane from terrorists" is that there are enemies out there, and the government needs to protect you, probably including military actions. (And imagine if "weapons of mass destruction" might be involved! See Iraq above ramp up to try to create a conflict with Iran in recent U.S. politics.) Public surveillance and police state actions create a state of paranoia in the populace that can often lead them to support armed conflicts... because they're just that freaked out and scared.

    Now, what about secret surveillance that is kept from the public? Well, it does similar things, except the paranoia now is left to fester inside the government and agencies that compile the data. There will always be apparent "threats" to every nation, always people shooting their mouths off about something or other, always people talking to shady people (but not actually intending to be terrorists).

    But increased surveillance ensures that lots of people in the government are frankly OBSESSED with huge amounts of weird stuff going by their desks every day. A report here, a briefing there, and suddenly you're convinced that many people are plotting terrorist activities right now -- and they're out to get you.

    I don't know this for certain, but I have to guess that this obsession with looking for ANY signs of potentially bad actions probably also contributed to the Bush White House arguing for an invasion of Iraq (again, see above). The more "data" that comes in, the more likely that people are to see random patterns in it, effectively finding what they want to see.

    And when those people are in charge of major governments or lots of weapons, that kind of paranoid quest combing through random data is a serious threat to world peace.

    I think there are better candidates.

    So do I. But someone who exposed the paranoid actions of crazy governments intent on finding "unseen enemies" to attack HAS potentially contributed something significant toward future peace.

  • by lxs (131946) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @02:28PM (#46102115)

    Without hard evidence there is no knowledge only speculation. This is what separates sane people from the tinfoil hat crowd.

  • Re:Great news! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @02:30PM (#46102145)

    I think you don't really understand the point of those rights. They aren't rights simply for being rights. They are rights because they are a necessary component of a healthy civilization. An "all seeing police state" perpetuates violence - the kind that a state visits on its citizens - it is just one or two steps removed from the actual violence that it creates.

  • by rmdashrf (1338183) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @02:32PM (#46102171)
    Which means that a lot of 'tinfoilers' all of a sudden became sane people after Edward Snowden's revelations.
  • Re:Great news! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by allaunjsiIverfox2 (3506701) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @02:37PM (#46102227)

    Snowden was just the messenger. If countries get angry at one another, it is because of their actions, not because of Snowden.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @03:04PM (#46102577)

    You see how well the last few years have gone. Every month GWB is looking so much better than Obama.

  • by macromorgan (2020426) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @03:57PM (#46103089)
    I'm not sure Nobel would be turning too much. His whole goal of the Nobel prize was so people wouldn't look at his legacy harshly considering he invented dynamite (at the time what could be considered a terrible weapon of war). Instead of associating his name with death and destruction, we associate him with great feats in science or humanitarian work. Looks like he got exactly what he wanted.
  • by MrBigInThePants (624986) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @03:57PM (#46103099)

    And that one there shows that the Nobel peace prize means NOTHING.

  • by Type44Q (1233630) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @04:13PM (#46103229)

    and which still has the Klan, which the same year had a party nominate Mr "Bomb bomb bomb Iran" and Mrs "Oh boy howdy", that country, that country, actually elected a black Democrat President

    Ironic that the racists probably won't take comfort from the fact that while he still may be black (ish), he's clearly a fascist (you'd think that might alleviate a lot of their gripes). :p

  • by supercrisp (936036) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @06:13PM (#46104435)
    Well. Maybe the KKK is greatly reduced, but the "Southern Strategy" is alive and well, as is racism, as both a factor in campaigns and elections, as well as in districting for elections, zoning, and education funding. Hell, what about Birmingham being back in the Supreme Court of the Voting Rights Act?
  • by Taco Cowboy (5327) on Wednesday January 29, 2014 @07:34PM (#46105237) Journal

    "What next, giving one to Jethro Tull?!"

    nah, give one to Cross eyed Mary instead...

    Actually, by awarding the "Peace Prize" to Obama the Nobel Peace Prize committee has permanently tarnished the reputation of the Nobel Peace Prize.

    The only redeeming thing that the committee can do is to TAKE BACK the Peace Prize that they have awarded Barack Hussein Obama.

    Without taking back that peace prize from Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize has become essentially meaningless.

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. -- Cartoon caption

Working...