Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Edward Snowden Nominated For Nobel Peace Prize

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the and-the-prize-for-best-way-to-quit-your-job-goes-to dept.

Privacy 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.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Nice (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283143)

Yeah, bring another shit storm to Norway..

Re:Nice (-1, Troll)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year ago | (#44283249)

So the Nobel Peace Prize = "I HATE AMERICA" Prize.

Re:Nice (5, Insightful)

1s44c (552956) | about a year ago | (#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:Nice (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#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:Nice (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#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?

Re:Nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283571)

And that means we should give someone the prize based entirely on the color of his skin?

Re:Nice (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#44283631)

It doesn't. I scoff at the Nobel committee.

Re:Nice (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283377)

And Obama hates America. So ya, you're right.

Re:Nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283405)

What do you mean?

Re:Nice (2)

LordLucless (582312) | about a year ago | (#44283441)

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:Nice (1, Informative)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#44283505)

That depends on your criterion for "largest". By defense spending? Most likely. By active military members, reserve members, paramilitary members or military members per capita, then not even close (although we are a distant #2 for active military).

And what do you consider a "major conflict"? There really hasn't been that many truly major individual conflicts in the last fifty years when compared to the fifty years before that. There's a lot of ambiguous statements there.

Re:Nice (5, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year ago | (#44283473)

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

Re:Nice (5, Insightful)

substance2003 (665358) | about a year ago | (#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?

Definitely... (5, Insightful)

Smivs (1197859) | about a year ago | (#44283149)

a good idea. This would send a positive message to arrogant governments everywhere.

Re:Definitely... (5, Interesting)

Xest (935314) | about a year ago | (#44283159)

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

Re:Definitely... (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#44283223)

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... (5, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44283265)

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... (4, Insightful)

1s44c (552956) | about a year ago | (#44283417)

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

Re:Definitely... (0)

csumpi (2258986) | about a year ago | (#44283421)

he promised to shutdown gitmo

The fix is in for that one:

1. instead of capturing terrorists kill them with drones, this keeps new prisoners from coming in

2. for the prisoners already there, just wait until their hunger strike ultimately ends

Re:Definitely... (5, Insightful)

JackieBrown (987087) | about a year ago | (#44283429)

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

Re:Definitely... (4, Insightful)

hendrikboom (1001110) | about a year ago | (#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:Definitely... (4, Interesting)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#44283535)

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:Definitely... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283495)

OK, I promise to shutdown gitmo, bring peace to middle east, stop collateral killings when killing people branded criminals without a trial etc.. you know, change. Where's my Nobel Peace Prize? I mean, at least I can be trusted not to do the exact opposite, since I don't have the power to do any of this or that.

Re:Definitely... (0, Troll)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about a year ago | (#44283529)

Gitmo would be shut down if he had the power. Talk to the GOP (and some Democrats) about why Gitmo isn't closed yet.

Re:Definitely... (3, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | about a year ago | (#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... (5, Insightful)

jittles (1613415) | about a year ago | (#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:Definitely... (3, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#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.

Re:Definitely... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283583)

Fact: the NSA investigated Barack Obama in 2003-2004, before he was elected senator. Did they learn something?

He basically ran unopposed (Alan Keys was the "token" opposition") since Jack Ryan dropped out after his sealed divorce records were illegally leaked. They contained allegations (later retracted) that he took his wife to sex clubs and gang-bangs. Her lawyer was Reggie Love, Barack Obama's best friend.

Re:Definitely... (4, Insightful)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about a year ago | (#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.

Re:Definitely... (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#44283339)

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... (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#44283347)

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

Why? You've just described one of the typical profiles of prospective candidates for the award.

Re:Definitely... (5, Insightful)

1s44c (552956) | about a year ago | (#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:Definitely... (1, Funny)

hendrikboom (1001110) | about a year ago | (#44283511)

Well. he doesn't seem to have started and new wars.

Re:Definitely... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283617)

Well. he doesn't seem to have started and new wars.

Yes, but you're forgetting the first rule of the American presidency: The history of America started exactly whenever the new guy took office. Thus, the wars we were involved in with the old guy are all the new guy's fault because they didn't stop instantly when he took office (look, I'm not the political pundit here, don't ask me how it works).

Re:Definitely... (2)

killvore (1260766) | about a year ago | (#44283403)

Thorbjørn Jagland wanted Obama to visit Norway and have his picture taken with him. That is the only reason. I am both embarassed and disgusted by that man (I am Norwegian)

Re:Definitely... (1)

Alsee (515537) | about a year ago | (#44283629)

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

It was mostly a "Goodbye Bush" celebration gift.
We could have elected Peewee Herman and they'd probably have sent HIM the Nobel Peace Prize.

-

Re:Definitely... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283323)

Has the Peace Prize ever been stripped from someone due to later revelations?

Re:Definitely... (1)

1s44c (552956) | about a year ago | (#44283423)

Has the Peace Prize ever been stripped from someone due to later revelations?

There is a first time for everything.

Re:Definitely... (1)

Xest (935314) | about a year ago | (#44283615)

Probably not, but then I don't think it's ever been awarded to someone before they've actually done anything either so maybe they'll have to evaluate that possibility.

Re:Definitely... (5, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#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:Definitely... (0)

pecosdave (536896) | about a year ago | (#44283343)

Came here to say this. Can't mod you any higher than 5 though.

Impeach Obama, Elect Snowden (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283603)

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

Re:Definitely... (0)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44283493)

a good idea. This would send a positive message to arrogant governments everywhere.

I doubt that China, Russia, North Korea, et. al., will get the message. For some reason nobody seems to be stealing and disclosing their secrets.

Japan accuses China of encroaching in its waters after three ships closed-in on disputed islands [dailymail.co.uk]
Philippines rebukes China for ‘militarization’ in South China Sea [todayonline.com]
Bien Dong Encroachments of China [nationaltimes.vn]
China’s land grab in India [japantimes.co.jp]

Stoking tensions with Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines over islands in the South and East China seas has not prevented an increasingly assertive China from opening yet another front by staging a military incursion across the disputed, forbidding Himalayan frontier.

On the night of April 15, a People’s Liberation Army (PLA) platoon stealthily intruded near the China-India-Pakistan tri-junction, established a camp 19 kilometers inside Indian-controlled territory, and presented India’s government with the potential loss of a strategically vital, 750-square-km, high-altitude plateau.

A stunned India, already reeling under a crippling domestic political crisis, has groped for an effective response to China’s land grab — the largest and most strategic real estate China has seized since it began pursuing a more muscular policy toward its neighbors. Whether China intends to stay put by building permanent structures for its troops on the plateau’s icy heights, or plans to withdraw after having extracted humiliating military concessions from India, remains an open — and in some ways a moot — question.

The fact is that, with its “peaceful rise” giving way to an increasingly sharp-elbowed approach to its neighbors, China has broadened its “core interests” — which brook no compromise — and territorial claims, while showing a growing readiness to take risks to achieve its goals.

You have got to be kidding me (0, Troll)

skyraker (1977528) | about a year ago | (#44283153)

This man not only revealed a not-technically illegal surveillance program, he told other countries we were spying on them and revealed details about programs that aren't covered by any Consitutional protection. May as well go back and award the Peace Prize to the Rosenbergs because they helped make sure other countries had the bomb.

Re:You have got to be kidding me (2)

rvw (755107) | about a year ago | (#44283185)

... programs that aren't covered by any Consitutional protection ....

Isn't this enough to make it illegal?

Re:You have got to be kidding me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283261)

... programs that aren't covered by any Consitutional protection ....

Isn't this enough to make it illegal?

You missed or misinterpreted his meaning: the programs aren't covered by any Constitutional protection therefore saying they are unconstitutional is untrue. There was no evidence of 4th amendment violations, merely many many empty accusations and "well they could do it IF" and "what happens when they want to do..." type of arguments that really don't hold water when you are referring to illegality and proving intent.

The NSA programs might very well be reckless from a constitutional perspective, but they are certainly NOT unconstitutional.

Re:You have got to be kidding me (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#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:You have got to be kidding me (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283263)

... programs that aren't covered by any Consitutional protection ....

Isn't this enough to make it illegal?

Wow. You really don't understand how the Constitution works.

Re:You have got to be kidding me (0)

drainbramage (588291) | about a year ago | (#44283333)

Aw, give him a break.
He we to U.S. public schools.
Most expensive system of non-learning in the world.

Re:You have got to be kidding me (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about a year ago | (#44283561)

Actually you don't. The only powers the government has are those explicitly granted. Also, the absence of mention of a right does not equate to the people not having it. You are the one ignorant of the Constitution.

Re:You have got to be kidding me (1, Informative)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year ago | (#44283325)

No. Read it again.

Considering what I've seen since the initial release of information, I am no longer sure Snowden had any evidence of the government breaking any laws (or 4th Amendment protections). I do think it went way beyond what was reasonable and necessary to do its job, and the government kept secret a great deal of information about what it was doing that should have been the subject of public debate before it was permitted to do it. And it's clear that their director perjured himself before Congress, for which he should have been and still should be fired and charged.

Whether in the end what Snowden did was justified is for a jury to decide,whatever the Nobel Committee thinks.

Re:You have got to be kidding me (5, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year ago | (#44283547)

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 (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283197)

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.

Re: You have got to be kidding me (1, Redundant)

mitcheli (894743) | about a year ago | (#44283287)

It's only illegal if it's enforceable. If the Congress passed it, the courts verified it, and the executive branch is acting on it, there are no more checks and balances left. And if the highest levels of those branches are in support of it, then there's no one to jail. There's no top cover over that to hold the parties responsible. At this point, there's really only two choices for holding those responsible. First, we can support civil organizations like the EFF or EPIC and hope their cases make it to the Supreme Court (and hope for a favorable ruling)... difficult. Or we have to seriously reconsider those in office and seriously change our voting habits to start supporting candidates that don't permit these types of programs ... damn near impossible. So instead, we're stuck with what we've got. And that's not going to change.

About that "treason" thing... (5, Informative)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year ago | (#44283385)

I have bad news for you about that "treason" term you throw around so casually. If you read the _whole_ Constitution instead of just the fashionable parts, you'll find that treason has a very specific definition in Article 3, Section 3 [usconstitution.net] . While I agree that the NSA programs are illegal, "the people" {{which ones?}} at NSA didn't meet the definition of treason. Not even close.

Re:About that "treason" thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283575)

at NSA didn't meet the definition of treason.

Did they wage espionage? Against "the states"? Is espionage an act of war? Were there two witnesses?

You're going to have to explain to us how it's not treason.

Re:You have got to be kidding me (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283201)

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

Re:You have got to be kidding me (2)

1s44c (552956) | about a year ago | (#44283513)

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.

I AGREE WITH YOU!11!111!1111!!11 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283203)

Hallelujah! Arrest that turrorist Snowden! God bless the Republican Party!!1

Re:You have got to be kidding me (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283225)

not-technically illegal

Ah, the best kind of illegal!

Re: You have got to be kidding me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283227)

legal maybe, but it's unconstitutional

Re:You have got to be kidding me (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#44283231)

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 (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#44283251)

If a statute goes against the Constitution, then it is the statute that is illegal, because the Constitution is the only thing that authorizes those statutes in the first place.

With that first-day-of-civics lesson behind us, there are so many statutes that fit that bill, and a complicit Supreme Court, that it might as well not matter. We've gone back to, essentially, "but I've got a bigger stick", this time with a stack of papers describing that sick, to placate the populous.

Re:You have got to be kidding me (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#44283281)

Did Snowden help other countries build illegal domestic spying programs? If not, then your analogy is wrong.

Re:You have got to be kidding me (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44283361)

That question is premature. They would still be studying the specs Snowden provided and forming the project plans.

NSA's NOT supposed to surveil US citizens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283283)

Subject-line above = fact. Change the rules? Then, what good ARE rules for if you do?? Nobody can be trusted with that kind of power - period. Nobody. That, is the problem: Absolute Power Corrupting Absolutely. Your "it's legal" bullshit doesn't stand up when the people of the USA didn't have ANY SAY WHATSOEVER in its alleged/supposed "legality" when WE are the employers of those people. They are not our masters. They should do what WE say, not the other way around. You have it ALL FUCKED UP if you think otherwise.

Re:You have got to be kidding me (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44283321)

maybe rosenbergs do deserve it - no open war between soviets and usa has happened since(or before that, really, but besides the point).

but you know what? it's not an american prize.. soo .. umm... america needs a new pr department and fuck you.

Re:You have got to be kidding me (5, Insightful)

1s44c (552956) | about a year ago | (#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?

Peace Prize (5, Insightful)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year ago | (#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.

Re:Peace Prize (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283241)

As they say, Peace Prize my ass...

Re:Peace Prize (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283253)

You forgot Yasser Arafat..

Re:Peace Prize (3, Interesting)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year ago | (#44283409)

You also forgot Wangari Maathai, and African Nobel prize winner. She believes AIDS was developed in the West as a biological warfare weapon.

Re:Peace Prize (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about a year ago | (#44283579)

And let's not forget the ever peace-loving Yassir Arafat.

Re:Peace Prize (4, Insightful)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about a year ago | (#44283467)

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:Peace Prize (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283475)

Obama was awarded the prize for offering change.
There was change all right, there is no way the public would have accepted the crap Obama is pulling with Bush, or any Republican President.

As far as Snowden, I don't care, so far the "snooping" sounds like the NSA gets a copy of my cell phone bill.

Two wrongs don't make a right (4, Insightful)

RetiredMidn (441788) | about a year ago | (#44283191)

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:Two wrongs don't make a right (2)

geminidomino (614729) | about a year ago | (#44283215)

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:Two wrongs don't make a right (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#44283391)

What sort of information are you awaiting that would make you not-ambivalent?

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right (1)

richlv (778496) | about a year ago | (#44283537)

heh. i'm reading that book right now. are you from nsa ?

no, no it won't (5, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | about a year ago | (#44283193)

" '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 (3, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#44283217)

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 (1)

zakkie (170306) | about a year ago | (#44283229)

As I'm out of mod points, have a good, old-fashioned +1.

Don't give him a "new" peace prize. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283235)

But take back Obama's to give Snowden.

hasty (5, Insightful)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about a year ago | (#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?

Doesn't the winner need to... (5, Insightful)

mitcheli (894743) | about a year ago | (#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:Doesn't the winner need to... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44283357)

making the odds more even actually promotes peace. plenty of evidence of that before...

declaring some acts as acts of war and then proceeding right to do them certainly doesn't though.

Re:Doesn't the winner need to... (1)

csumpi (2258986) | about a year ago | (#44283457)

Oh come on, why would common sense be required? That would make no sense.

Also Revoke Obama Peace Prize (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283259)

Edward Snowen is a hero to US and to the World. Revealing that tyranny governments are spying and controlling peoples life, running the risk of being killed it's an act of courage. He gave up his comfortable life with a good salary on Hawaii and a relationship with a beautiful woman to prove to us that we are being watched illegally. Edward Snowen deserve support of all US citizens and the world. He is not a traitor, traitor is the politician who use it's power to do illegal action against citizens of their nation and the rest of the world. Those politician who allowed this crime to happen. Are who must be judged and arrest for a treason.

Snowden is a traitor (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283271)

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. Everyone knows what the NSA is about, but Snowden takes the operational details of the programs and gives them the Russians and Chinese.

Re:Snowden is a traitor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283471)

Correction, the security apparatus of the US is a traitor. Spying on your citizens is morally wrong and legally suspect. Ask anyone who lived in the DDR(aka East Germany) how they felt about living under the Stasi. In short, the NSA is becoming the Stasi, think about that and then tell me who is really the traitor here?

Re:Snowden is a traitor (1)

EzInKy (115248) | about a year ago | (#44283611)

How does that not make him more worthy of the prize? Aren't most wars started due to secret ambitions? It just makes sense to me that when country A says it wants C, country B will try harder to protect C. It's when B doesn't doesn't know that A wants C that causes violence to arise.,

They're worried about disrepute? (3, Insightful)

ReallyEvilCanine (991886) | about a year ago | (#44283299)

> 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?

I have an idea (5, Interesting)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#44283349)

Someone should give Obama the "best arming of rebels" award now too just to really rub in how stupid that decision was. Foreigners need to keep their opinions and million dollar prizes out of our elections. Snowden, however, should get one. Well, except that he probably worsened foreign relationships and might actually cause a war. But just on merit, why not?

lol (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283355)

Lets give a guy who wanted his 15 minutes of fame, the nobel prize for getting it. /smh

Criminals will still hunt him. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283369)

It will not stop exposed organized crime from hunting him down. Just look what these arrogant pricks do. They don't respond to anyone, they think laws don't apply to them, they own the media.
We can just expect another round of denials by criminals caught in act. They have too much to lose.

Unless of course (2)

sunking2 (521698) | about a year ago | (#44283387)

it triggers an actual war somewhere. Stranger things have happened in history.

Not better or safer (5, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#44283425)

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.

Official media still quiet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44283469)

It's been almost 24 hours and except RT and DailyMail, rest of propaganda outlets keep the news out of the stream.

So essentially... (1)

Millennium (2451) | about a year ago | (#44283485)

It sounds like this is the "I'm not Obama" award, counterpart to the "I'm not Bush" award that Obama was given. I saw this coming a mile away. The Peace Prize has been a joke for years.

Somehow I don't think he has done the following... (1, Insightful)

cjjjer (530715) | about a year ago | (#44283577)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?