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!

WikiLeaks, Internet Nominees For Nobel Peace Prize

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the keep-'em-nominated dept.

The Internet 202

Hugh Pickens writes writes "WikiLeaks and the Internet are among a record 241 nominations for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize that also includes Afghan rights advocate Sima Samar, the European Union, former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Cuban dissident Oswaldo Paya Sardinas, Russian rights group Memorial and its founder Svetlana Gannushkina. 'Looking at the long term, we can say interest in the prize is strong and growing along with the number of candidates,' says Geir Lundestad, a non-voting member of the Nobel panel. WikiLeaks grabbed the world's attention and angered a number of governments by publishing thousands of secret US diplomatic cables, while pundits say the Internet or social media such as Facebook and Twitter, which have been used to help organize dissent in countries with oppressive governments, could be rewarded. Under the leadership of former Prime Minister Thorbjoern Jagland, the Nobel panel has not shied away from bold decisions — first picking Barack Obama just months after he became US president, and last year awarding the prize to jailed Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo."

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

I'd love to meet this Internet guy (2, Funny)

kriston (7886) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347294)

I'd love to meet this Internet guy some day.

Re:I'd love to meet this Internet guy (2)

andrea.sartori (1603543) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347366)

At this point I'd propose a nomination for the Medicine Nobel: water. (Hey, it keeps people alive all the time.)
On the other hand among the nominees you have the EU. The Nobel Committee must be just trolling.

Re:I'd love to meet this Internet guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347616)

you know, the EU has been pretty successfull at keeping peace in Europe itself...

And if you think that's no big deal, ask yourself: where were the last few "world wars" fought?

Re:I'd love to meet this Internet guy (2)

mrrudge (1120279) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347728)

Never again.

War isn't a flashy news item with patriotic missiles gleaming off into the sunset, it's friends and relatives dying horrible, horrible deaths.

Re:I'd love to meet this Internet guy (1)

andrea.sartori (1603543) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347798)

I'd say that no war has ever been fought in my house, but I hardly deserve a Nobel prize. By the way, the EU has mostly been successful in causing wars to be fought outside Europe... provided we count the Western Balkans / former Yugoslavia as "outside Europe" along with Georgia and the Caucasus. And Transnistria. And Kosovo.

Re:I'd love to meet this Internet guy (2, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35348206)

Really? You don't remember that whole Bosnia-Croatia-Kosovo thing? The EU couldn't keep the peace 300 miles from Rome. The NATO/Russian lead Dayton Accords ended the war in Bosnia after three years of failed EU attempts.

I also remember IFOR in Bosnia having alot of American units, in fact Task Force Eagle's US Army units made up the bulk of the ground forces there in Bosnia.

100,000 people died in Bosnia because of the EU's successful peacekeeping. 10,000+ dead in Kosovo and another 120,000 dead in the break up of Yugoslavia.

If we are talking about keeping the peace in Europe, why didn't the US Army, BAOR/British Forces Germany and Soviet Guard Armies get nominated? They are the forces that kept Europe from blowing up from 1945 to 1991, then the Russians, British, Americans and French rolled down to fix Bosnia.

Re:I'd love to meet this Internet guy (3, Funny)

rednip (186217) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347794)

You would feel that way about water, if you knew the evil it has done: Dihydrogen Monoxide Warning [msu.edu]

Agreed (2)

Weezul (52464) | more than 3 years ago | (#35348080)

Moreover, they should not ask engineers to accept the award on behalf of the internet, i.e. no Tim Berners-Lee, no Zuckerberg, etc.

Ideally, the people who accept the prize should be people who're most putting themselves at risk to make the internet friendly to dissidents. And that'd be Julian Assange, Jacob Appelbaum (Tor project), etc. :)

We should all hope that WikiLeaks wins with Assange accepting the prize because it's be fucking hilarious if they award an empty chair with him being in prison in Sweden. Truely. Epic. Lulz.

Ideally, they'll award both WikiLeaks and it's leakers, that way we'll get an empty chair for Manning even if Assange has gone free. lol

Alternatively, you might ask some people heavily involved in the actually usage of the internet in the middle easter revolutions, maybe Wael Ghonim.

Re:I'd love to meet this Internet guy (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347380)

Oh c'mon, he's a myth. Everywhere and nowhere, transcending space and time... get real!

Re:I'd love to meet this Internet guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347536)

He lives in Holland and kept in isolation by his governement and Queen. No kidding.

Re:I'd love to meet this Internet guy (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347654)

We have met the Internet and he is us.

Re:I'd love to meet this Internet guy (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347664)

This may just be conjecture, but I hear Internet's a pretty cool guy. He has pron and doesn't afraid of anything.

Re:I'd love to meet this Internet guy (2)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347864)

If the Internet wins, will Al Gore be picking the award up on it's behalf?

Re:I'd love to meet this Internet guy (0)

Weezul (52464) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347970)

That's be asinine, Gore won one Nobel Peace Prize himself already.

You shouldn't give the award to engineers for side effects of their work either, i.e. Tim Berners-Lee, Zuckerberg, etc. should not do the accepting if the internet wins. Ideally, the people who accept the prize should be people who're most putting themselves at risk to make the internet friendly to dissidents. And that'd be Julian Assange, Jacob Appelbaum (Tor project), etc. :)

We should all pull for Assange here because that'd be fucking hilarious if they must award an empty chair with him in prison. lol And Manning too for the same reason.

Re:I'd love to meet this Internet guy (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 3 years ago | (#35348220)

It was a joke.

But the problem is, the World Peace that emerged from the Internet was not the creation of one, or even a team of people. Especially in the Middle East. If anyone should get the Nobel Peace Prize it's the whole of Egypt in what has amounted to a bloodless coup. The Internet facilitated it yes, but that's like saying Newton's pen is the reason we have Calculus

Assange, definitely Assange, and maybe Manning (1, Interesting)

Weezul (52464) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347892)

They should give it to WikiLeaks with Julian Assange accepting for WikiLeaks, meaning an empty chair if he's still in prison. And jointly they could award the anonymous source(s) of their three big classified U.S. leaks, an empty chair since Brian Manning rots in prison.

The Nobel Peace Prize should ideally have some sort of activist quality, making dissident unkillable, pissing off some government, etc. The U.S. and Sweden deserve the embarrassment of the world looking at two empty chairs representing their hypocrisy. Epic lulz!

That said, if they choose the internet, they should still ask that Julian Assange, Jacob Appelbaum (Tor project), etc. accept the award on behalf of the Internet, the point being they're most representative of making the technology available for dissidents. You should not ask say Tim Berners-Lee to accept an award on behalf of the internet because all this progress has been a side effect of his work. And it'd just be asinine awarding Facebook and Twitter. Yes, they played a major role, but so did radio, fax, etc.

Re:I'd love to meet this Internet guy (1)

Kavli (762663) | more than 3 years ago | (#35348214)

Have you never seen "Connection reset by peer"?

It's this Peer-guy you're looking for.

The nomination of Wikileaks (4, Interesting)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347310)

will leave the United States government in an interesting quandry if it proceeds to success.

The US was vociferous in supporting the award of the Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, in the face of the Chinese government's strident opposition. What will it do when an organization it considers "treasonous" is a Nobel candidate?

Just for payback... I mean, symmetry... China should publicly back Wikileaks' bid.

Re:The nomination of Wikileaks (3, Informative)

darjen (879890) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347376)

It just so happens that Liu Xiaobo was/is an ardent supporter of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which probably gave the USA even more cause to support him. I don't understand how on earth you can give a peace prize to someone who supports war. What a joke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xiaobo#Political_views [wikipedia.org]

Re:The nomination of Wikileaks (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347428)

They gave Henry Kissinger a peace prize; everything after that was downhill.

Re:The nomination of Wikileaks (5, Insightful)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347464)

Known terrorists have literally been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama was awarded the prize for having done absolutely nothing to earn it. The combination literally means everyone on earth has earned a Nobel prize. Sadly, the prize has become something of a sad joke and isn't respected by anyone with a brain. Worse, in modern times, they've been attempting to use it to shape politics rather than reward high ethics and peaceful politics, making it all the more pathetic.

The Nobel Peace Prize is absolutely meaningless at this point in time.

Re:The nomination of Wikileaks (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347534)

The Nobel Peace Prize is absolutely meaningless at this point in time.

So... it worked! You do realize that their purpose is to take away from us everything that means something to us, right?

Re:The nomination of Wikileaks (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347696)

So basically, it's like those crappy little trophies they hand out to every single Little League player at the end of the year (regardless of how well they actually played), except it's only one award and just once per year?

Re:The nomination of Wikileaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347734)

The combination literally means everyone on earth has earned a Nobel prize.

Figuratively. Figuratively everyone. Unless I missed a memo and have a prize to go pick up.

Rendered meaningless (1)

dazedNconfuzed (154242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347754)

Known terrorists have literally been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

Yassir Arafat.

At this point, if anyone gets the prize who deserves it, the reason isn't because they deserved it. Assange will get it, not because he deserves it, but because it would embarrass the USA.

It's a good award to refuse at this point.

Re:Rendered meaningless (5, Informative)

chrb (1083577) | more than 3 years ago | (#35348016)

Known terrorists have literally been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

Yassir Arafat.

Arafat jointly won the Nobel Prize along with Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres for their part in the Oslo Peace Accords. Arafat was not a terrorist at the time of winning. He had just negotiated and signed the Peace Accords - which formally renounced violence and recognised the state of Israel. He led a secular organisation, and fought against Hamas and Islamist influence in Palestine. He was seen as a traitor by some of his people for conceding too much in the negotiations, was sidelined by Israel and the West, which ultimately enabled Hamas to seize power.

Arafat's fate wasn't as bad as that of Rabin, who was also viewed as a traitor to his people for signing the Peace Accords, was condemned to death by some Jewish religious scholars for the crime of "treason", and then assassinated by someone who believed in that verdict.

It's too bad that both were seen as traitors for pursuing peace; the failure of the Peace Accords was probably the biggest squandered opportunity for regional peace in the last few decades.

Re:The nomination of Wikileaks (1, Insightful)

Fractal Dice (696349) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347764)

Every time I see these slams against Obama for getting the prize for nothing, I smile. Because the way the rants are phrased only prove to me that committee made the right choice. Obama is just the placeholder. It's the American people who really won the award.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

Meaningless, but not useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347868)

If it makes the spotlight on wikileaks shine even brighter, I'm all for it. We NEED the average Joe to finally recognize that government works in self-interest -- the exact opposite of what they loudly proclaim -- because then and only then will we have a chance at limiting the extent of corruption in government.

Re:The nomination of Wikileaks (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347904)

Known terrorists have literally been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

There are at least 2 counterarguments to this being somehow illegitimate:
1. "Terrorist" is an extremely hard word to define, because almost everything that people generally considered terrorists do, governments also do. For instance, the US government has blown up apartment buildings in Yemen to try to influence Yemeni policy. All too often, "terrorist", like "communist" 50 years ago, just means "some guy a government doesn't like".
2. Known terrorists can in fact make peace. The IRA were terrorists, yet they made peace with the UK. The ANC were at times terrorists, but Nelson Mandela made peace with the South African government.

Re:The nomination of Wikileaks (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 3 years ago | (#35348052)

It reminds me of a passage in "Interesting Times" by Terry Pratchett. It goes along the lines of:

- You are a rebel. You should be punished!
- But there are mitigating circumstances!
- There are no mitigating circumstances for rebels.
- Unless you WIN.
- Yes, that is the only mitigating circumstance.

Re:The nomination of Wikileaks (3, Informative)

Spykk (823586) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347924)

Known terrorists have literally been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama was awarded the prize for having done absolutely nothing to earn it. The combination literally means everyone on earth has earned a Nobel prize.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:The nomination of Wikileaks (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35348190)

Known terrorists have literally been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama was awarded the prize for having done absolutely nothing to earn it. The combination literally means everyone on earth has earned a Nobel prize. Sadly, the prize has become something of a sad joke and isn't respected by anyone with a brain. Worse, in modern times, they've been attempting to use it to shape politics rather than reward high ethics and peaceful politics, making it all the more pathetic.

A known terrorist that at the time was shaking hands and making peace with the israelis on the White House lawn. Also I think Norway suffered an awful lot of hubris because these were the Oslo Accords [wikipedia.org] , Oslo being the capital of Norway. Many people liked to believe this was the agreement to finally settle things between the israelis and palestinians, which would have been a prize-worthy accomplishment no matter his past. The trouble is that they act too soon, they put the prestige of the peace prize into the deal to make it hold rather than wait and see if this agreement flops like so many have in the past. And when it does, the agreement becomes less important and people start looking at who the f*** they actually gave the prize to. It was a screwup, I think all agree on that.

I don't see them trying to shape politics as bad as such, obviously awarding it to Liu Xiaobo is an attempt to influence Chinese politics. You can go back to 1935 and the prize to Carl von Ossietzky was clearly an attempt to influence German politics, it's not like this is a new thing. What's bad is that they no longer reward high risk, long term commitment and actual accomplishments. Instead they try making it an obligation on the recipients, like they did with Obama. Plus they stuck their hand up the beehive of global politics, you can't give the prize to a sitting US president one year and a Chinese dissident the next year without apparently taking sides. And that's the last thing they should do. At least they're not too afraid to award the prize to controversial characters, like they did with Gandhi. It's not like the past was perfect and the present hopeless, but I wish they'd stick more with unknown heroes and less with top politicians, big UN made organizations and such.

I respect it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35348258)

and I have a brain, and view Arafat as a freedom fighter against the vicious aggressor Israel. And despite the way Israel behaves, he still was prepared to sit down and talk peace with them. So he deserved to receive it.

Re:The nomination of Wikileaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347820)

Remember the only thing war ends with is peace and the only thing peace ends with is war.

Re:The nomination of Wikileaks (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35348218)

Obama supports war and he got the Nobel Peace Prize.

Re:The nomination of Wikileaks (1)

Magada (741361) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347456)

Dunno. Sic mercs [anonleaks.ch] on them, maybe? Plausible deniability is a sweet thing.

Re:The nomination of Wikileaks (1)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347486)

Just for payback... I mean, symmetry... China should publicly back Wikileaks' bid.

Perhaps you mean harmony ;-)

Re:The nomination of Wikileaks (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347516)

A better question is, despite your hyperbole, why would the US government care. Furthermore, they have no input into the matter so even if they do care, who cares.

Re:The nomination of Wikileaks (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347610)

Muahaha delicious, I was hoping this would happen for exactly this reason. Let's see how the US reacts when the tables are turned.

Re:The nomination of Wikileaks (1)

Xphile101361 (1017774) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347692)

Except I'm sure that China is far more afraid of wikileaks than the US Government.

Acceptance (1)

Meneth (872868) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347322)

Who can accept an award on behalf of the Internet? The Swedish Pirate Party has a candidate, presented here [opassande.se] . (Google translation to English) [google.com]

Re:Acceptance (5, Funny)

jolyonr (560227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347382)

Who can accept an award on behalf of the Internet?

Al Gore, of course!

Re:Acceptance (1)

MonsterMasher (518641) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347780)

Funny. Al Gore. For Internet. I happen to think Assange needs and deserves it.

But Gore did pitch and win funding for the basic DARPA net which grew into the Internet. BTW, you will never find an old quote of him saying he invented the Internet. The people who still believe this have not realised the extent of workers being shafted in the USA for the last 30 years. This is still a wealthy country, we just are not so rich and immoral as to carpet bomb entire countries so that corporations can improve their bottom line.

Can't wait to see how funny the future is, with depression level economy and unions broken. Your children in work camps, a religious nut in the white house, dog eat dog world where old and poor freeze to death, and young kids grow hungry.

Re:Acceptance (0)

Weezul (52464) | more than 3 years ago | (#35348184)

You should not choose the awardees or accepters of a Nobel Peace Prize based upon side effects of their work, that's just dumb. So no Tim Berners-Lee, no Zuckerberg, etc.

If the internet wins, those accepting should be people who've put themselves on the line by bringing technology to dissidents, i.e. Julian Assange, Jacob Appelbaum (Tor project), etc. And there will truly epic lulz if they need an empty chair for Assange because he's in prison.

Alternatively, you might choose Arab and North African revolutionaries who've made incredible usage of the internet.

p.s. They could jointly award WikiLeaks and the anonymous source(s) of their three big classified U.S. leaks, an empty chair since Brian Manning rots in prison. Again epic lulz! And double secret probation epic lulz if they need an empty char for both Assange and Manning. :)

Re:Acceptance (2)

ACS Solver (1068112) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347480)

I don't really like how the nomination is for the Internet as an entity, though I agree there needs to be a Peace Prize for it. The best candidate is probably Sir Tim Berners-Lee. To most people, the Web IS the Internet - let's face it, when people think of the Internet and its contributions to society, they probably do not think about BBS of olde or of Gopher servers. Berners-Lee also has the advantage of actually being personally responsible for something. Many important creations end up being the work of a larger group where it's hard to single anyone out. So given what the Internet means to people, Berners-Lee is probably the best single person to represent it.

Re:Acceptance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347492)

I'm going to go with Tim Berners-Lee, Ben Huh being a close second.

Re:Acceptance (0)

Weezul (52464) | more than 3 years ago | (#35348240)

That's dumb, you shouldn't award the prize for a side effect of an unrelated engineering effort. Prizes must be purely functional! ;)

Fuck, that ass Zuckerberg would beat out Tim Berners-Lee anywho. Zuckerberg was at least considering the social consequences, sure he'd bad social consequences in mind, but he still better understood the consequences of his invention than Tim Berners-Lee.

If the internet wins, those accepting should be people who've put themselves on the line by bringing technology to dissidents, i.e. Julian Assange, Jacob Appelbaum (Tor project), etc. Plus we'll get epic lulz if they need an empty chair for Assange.

Re:Acceptance (1)

arielCo (995647) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347542)

This would be a fine occasion to say "Relax, I'm from the Internet" in real life :)

Re:Acceptance (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347624)

I can think of some [eupodiatamatando.com] other candidates [bravenewworldscomics.com] ...

/. nominated for 'censorship with a smile' award (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347324)

iki leaks? asshanged? who what? peace? who wants that?

By Carl Teichrib:

â€The Georgia Guidestones, a massive granite edifice planted in the Georgia countryside, contains a list of ten new commandments for Earthâ€s citizens. The first commandment, and the one which concerns this article, simply states; â€Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.â€

Robert Walker, former chair of PepsiCo and Proctor & Gamble on water:

Water is a gift of nature. Its delivery is not. It must be priced to insure it is used sustainably.

Mikhail Gorbachev:

â€We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there arenâ€t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.â€

Jacques Cousteau UNESCO Courier 1991:

â€In order to save the planet it would be necessary to kill 350,000 people per day.â€

Jacques Cousteau, Population: Opposing Viewpoints:

â€If we want our precarious endeavor to succeed, we must convince all human beings to participate in our adventure, and we must urgently find solutions to curb the population explosion that has a direct influence on the impoverishment of the less-favoured communities. Otherwise, generalized resentment will beget hatred, and the ugliest genocide imaginable, involving billions of people, will become unavoidable.â€

â€Uncontrolled population growth and poverty must not be fought from inside, from Europe, from North America, or any nation or group of nations; it must be attacked from the outside – by international agencies helped in the formidable job by competent and totally non-governmental organizations.â€

David Rockefeller: Memoirs 2002 Founder of the CFR:

â€We wield over American political and economical institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as â€internationalists†and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political structure, one world, if you will. If thatâ€s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.â€
David Rockefeller, Co-founder of the Trilateral Commission:

â€We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine & other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plans for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American Case Officer for the State Departmentâ€s Office of Population Affairs (OPA) (now the US State Dept. Office of Population Affairs, est. by Henry Kissinger in 1975): â€There is a single theme behind all our work -we must reduce population levels,†said Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American case officer for the State Departmentâ€s Office of Population Affairs (OPA). â€Either they [governments] do it our way, through nice clean methods or they will get the kind of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran, or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it. â€The professionals,†said Ferguson, â€arenâ€t interested in lowering population for humanitarian reasons. That sounds nice. We look at resources and environmental constraints. We look at our strategic needs, and we say that this country must lower its population -or else we will have trouble.

â€So steps are taken. El Salvador is an example where our failure to lower population by simple means has created the basis for a national security crisis. The government of El Salvador failed to use our programs to lower their population. Now they get a civil war because of it…. There will be dislocation and food shortages. They still have too many people there.†(1981)

Aldous Huxley, Lecture named Population Explosion 1959:

â€â€¦Let us ask ourselves what the practical alternatives are as we confront this problem of population growth. One alternative is to do nothing in particular about it and just let things go on as they are…The question is: Are we going to restore the balance in the natural way, which is a brutal and entirely anti-human way, or are we going to restore it in some intelligent, rational, and humane way…Try to increase production as much as possible and at the same time try to re-establish the balance between the birth rate by means less gruesome than those which are used by nature – by intelligent and human methods?…There are colossal difficulties in the way of implementing any large-scale policy of limitation of population; whereas death control is extremely easy under modern circumstances, birth control is extremely difficult. The reason is very simple: death control – the control, for example, of infectious diseases – can be accomplished by a handful of experts and quite a small labour force of unskilled persons and requires a very small capital expenditure.â€

Barry Commoner, Making Peace with the Planet:

â€There have been â€triage†proposals that would condemn whole nations to death through some species of global â€benign neglectâ€. There have been schemes for coercing people to curtail their fertility, by physical and legal means that are ominously left unspecified. Now we are told that we must curtail rather than extend our efforts to feed the hungry peoples of the world. Where will it end?†Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, April 28, 1997, Testimony before Congressional Committee: â€There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. Itâ€s real, and thatâ€s the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and thatâ€s why this is so important.â€

Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, April 28, 1997; Testimony before Congressional Committee:

â€And advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.â€

Sir Julian Huxley, UNESCO: its Purpose and its Philosophy:

â€Political unification in some sort of world government will be required… Even though… any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.†In the early 1950â€s, former Communist Joseph Z. Kornfeder expressed the opinion that UNESCO was comparable to a Communist Party agitation and propaganda department. He stated that such a party apparatus â€handles the strategy and method of getting at the public mind, young and old.†Huxley would lard the agency with a motley collection of Communists and fellow travelers.

President Richard Nixon believed abortion was necessary as a form of eugenics to prevent interracial breeding

Theodore Roosevelt to Charles B. Davenport, January 3, 1913, Charles B. Davenport Papers, Department of Genetics, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.:

â€I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feebleminded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them…The emphasis should be laid on getting desirable people to breed…â€

Ted Turner makes the radical statement that, â€A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal,â€

Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood, funded by the Rockefellers) said in her proposed â€The American Baby Codeâ€, intended to become law:

â€The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.â€

**This is the woman (Margaret Sanger) whom Hillary Clinton publicly declared she looked up to, during the 2008 presidential debates.**

Here is a short list of some advocates of eugenics; Alexander Graham Bell, George Bernard Shaw H. G. Wells, Sidney Webb, William Beveridge, John Maynard Keynes, Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Winston Churchill, Linus Pauling, Sidney Webb, Sir Francis Galton, Charles B. Davenport Futurist Barbara Marx Hubbard (who wanted to create a Dept. of Peace)...

â€Out of the full spectrum of human personality, one-fourth is electing to transcend…One-fourth is ready to so choose, given the example of one other…One-fourth is resistant to election. They are unattracted by life ever evolving. One-fourth is destructive. They are born angry with God…They are defective seeds…There have always been defective seeds. In the past they were permitted to die a â€natural deathâ€â€¦we, the elders, have been patiently waiting until the very last moment before the quantum transformation, to take action to cut out this corrupted and corrupting element in the body of humanity. It is like watching a cancer grow…Now, as we approach the quantum shift from creature-human to co-creative human—the human who is an inheritor of god-like powers—the destructive one-fourth must be eliminated from the social body. We have no choice, dearly beloveds. Fortunately you, dearly beloveds, are not responsible for this act. We are. We are in charge of Godâ€s selection process for planet Earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death. We come to bring death to those who are unable to know God…the riders of the pale horse are about to pass among you. Grim reapers, they will separate the wheat from the chaff. This is the most painful period in the history of humanity…â€

Alexander Haig is quoted referring to the US State Department Office of Population Affairs, which was established by Henry Kissinger in 1975. The title has since been changed to The Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental and Scientific Affairs:

â€Accordingly, the Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental and Scientific Affairs has consistently blocked industrialization policies in the Third World, denying developing nationâ€s access to nuclear energy technology–the policies that would enable countries to sustain a growing population. According to State Department sources, and Ferguson himself, Alexander Haig is a â€firm believer†in population control.

Re:/. nominated for 'censorship with a smile' awar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347518)

tl;dr

Re:/. nominated for 'censorship with a smile' awar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347554)

tl;Yo mama loves it

Chinese anger and WikiLeaks redemption? (1)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347332)

Norwegian companies have reported still meeting problems trading with China for having had the gal to give the price to a Chinese criminal, and the Chinese refuse to accept that the Nobel Peace Committee is independent of government.

I wonder if this misunderstanding could be rectified if WikiLeaks was given the peace price? At the very least China would see that they make decisions that obviously isn't in the best interest of the Norwegian state.

Re:Chinese anger and WikiLeaks redemption? (3, Informative)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347608)

Its not a misunderstanding. The Chinese know full well the prize committee is not an agent of the government, they just choose to spin it that way for their population.

What they really think about it is that it is an outgrowth of Western culture and political theory. The Chinese government believes that it has the best interests of its people at heart, and that a state like theirs is best for China. They know the the West does not share that opinion, so the Chinese government will use whatever means it has to discredit the prize committee when it conflicts with them. The best way of doing that is to spin it as a political tool.

As for the problems with trade, they are not punishing Norway for awarding the prize, they are punishing Norway for failing to spy on the committee, and then to for failing to intervene, exert influence and prevent such a candidate from being awarded the prize simply because China is bigger and more powerful. They are trying to bully the Norwegian government into acting in a manner contrary to its people's expectations and more in line with China's. China expects that other governments will do special things to stay friendly with China, and if they don't, they will make sure that the transgressor will pay for their lack of vision.

In short, China won't care if Wikileaks wins, they only care that they were thwarted before and they do not like to be thwarted. The only thing that will mollify China is if their hand-picked candidate wins due specifically to Chinese power. This isn't a matter of balance, its a pure dick waving contest.

Hopelessly political (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347338)

The prize now has become so political that it's hard to take it seriously anymore. There is no way Wikileaks stands a chance because of the way the committee is beholden to Western governments. Only pro-Western dissidents ever win, NEVER anti-Western dissidents or even those who might be construed as opposed to Western governments (ala Wikileaks). Obama's prize was the height of this political hypocrisy--giving him the award before he even had the chance to do anything, just on his word that he was going to do peaceful stuff (which he hasn't, if anything he's expanded Bush's heavy-handed war policies even more).

Re:Hopelessly political (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347408)

The prize now has become so political that it's hard to take it seriously anymore. There is no way Wikileaks stands a chance because of the way the committee is beholden to Western governments. Only pro-Western dissidents ever win, NEVER anti-Western dissidents or even those who might be construed as opposed to Western governments (ala Wikileaks). Obama's prize was the height of this political hypocrisy--giving him the award before he even had the chance to do anything, just on his word that he was going to do peaceful stuff (which he hasn't, if anything he's expanded Bush's heavy-handed war policies even more).

What exactly did Wikileaks do to deserve a prize? It's hopelessly political because everyone wants their guy to win (including you), rather than it being about something we can all agree on.

Re:Hopelessly political (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347418)

I'd award Barry Obama a prize just for ending the NeoCon control of the WH.

The next guy will deserve one for ending the Hollywood control of it too.

Re:Hopelessly political (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347672)

I'd award Barry Obama a prize just for ending the NeoCon control of the WH.

You misspelled "extending"

Re:Hopelessly political (4, Insightful)

darjen (879890) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347424)

The hypocrisy in giving Obama the prize wasn't because he didn't have the chance to do anything. It's because Obama ended up embracing and extending Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bombing Pakistan and the covert operations there. He utterly failed in his promise to close Guantanamo, insists on continuing the practice of jailing so-called enemy combatants indefinitely with no evidence or trial, etc etc etc.

You don't give someone who willingly insists on conducting global wars the peace prize. At least not if you have any credibility whatsoever.

Re:Hopelessly political (1)

drakaan (688386) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347636)

I'm not sure I agree. Peace is the opposite of death and chaos, but that death and chaos can occur without an official "war" being waged. For that matter, sometimes, official "war" is what ends the death and chaos.

I can't argue with your analysis of the President's promises vs. actions (though I doubt we agree on what was a failure and why), but I think you *can* give someone the peace prize who conducts war, if the reason and end result is a decrease in that same death and chaos for innocent people.

Re:Hopelessly political (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347828)

Oh please, fighting for peace is like raping for virginity, it doesn't really work (and you're doing it wrong if you're trying). The biggest decrease in death and chaos by that logic is to bring death upon all people. Squashing dissidents, whether you call them terrorists or vietcongs, until there are none left to fight is not "peace": It's tyranny.

Re:Hopelessly political (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347830)

For that matter, sometimes, official "war" is what ends the death and chaos.

True, but that is nowhere near the case in Iraq. The hundreds of thousands of dead are a testament to it being a colossal fuckup. Most of that is from sectarian violence, which the USA allowed to happen (not that I think there was anyway to avoid it after the invasion). If they tried that shit under Saddam, he would have gassed them all or something. Plus they'd have no hope of electing someone to power after kicking out the minority.

You can't argue that Obama broke some promises, but to say he's extending the war? Naw dude.

Re:Hopelessly political (0)

darjen (879890) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347918)

I'm almost 100% certain that Obama's war machine has destroyed far more innocent life than it has helped. Is there anyone who is better off, besides the wealthy executives of industrial companies (war profiteers) who get the military contracts? Certainly not the average Iraqi, Afghani, or American citizen...

Re:Hopelessly political (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 3 years ago | (#35348102)

Peace is the opposite of death and chaos

Chaos perhaps, but deaths are going to happen however peaceful things are. Perhaps you meant violent death?

Re:Hopelessly political (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347640)

You mean like back when they gave it to Henry Kissinger? Really, the politicized nature of the prize is nothing new.

Re:Hopelessly political (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347576)

Indeed, the Nobel prize committee hardly makes "bold" decisions. It picks obvious candidates, all of whom are popular with the "Stuff White People Like" crowd.

I think they fucked up by picking Obama, though. Accepting the prize was his "jumped the shark" moment. All the things he's done since, like sticking with Bush policies, just follow naturally from the arrogance of accepting a major prize for doing nothing.

Re:Hopelessly political (3, Insightful)

LordVader717 (888547) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347720)

Obama basically got the prize for the new START treaty. Of course his actions since then have been very unconvincing and many would like to be able to retract the prize after so many U-turns.

Horseshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347724)

[Obama] was going to do peaceful stuff (which he hasn't, if anything he's expanded Bush's heavy-handed war policies even more).

Huh, did I miss the part where he invaded two nations? Did he instruct his spies to build a case for war? Did he specifically go against the wishes of the UN and decide to go it alone? Did he cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people?

Oh, wait. He has a measured and definite plan to leave Iraq. Huh. Go fucking figure. A PLAN. Who makes those crazy things anymore?
(Now I just wish he'd work on getting us out of Afghanistan somehow)

Re:Hopelessly political (1)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347866)

It's SUPPOSED to be political. It's a prize for peace [wikipedia.org] . The idea of peace is inherently political.

the prize always was and always will be political (2)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35348350)

peace is a political concept. it is not possible to talk about peace without talking about politics. the very definition of the concept of peace itself is only possible to be made in political terminology

any political situation has people on one side or another. therefore, every peace prize every offered, or any theoretical peace prize even possible, will have political controversy attached to it. even if you awarded the prize to some monk who just helped farmers grow their crops better: some company who is angry that the farmers are better fed and have more time to protest them, they will make a political stink about that prize

so the idea that the peace prize is too political, to me, this just means you don't understand what the peace prize is, or perhaps you don't entirely understand the concept of peace itself

the case could be made, in fact, that the more controversial the peace prize, the more valid a prize it is, because it is more topical and current. pissing a lot of people off is proof that the particular political issue the peace prize is involved with is still a very passionate issue. awarding a peace prize on only very dry dead subjects no one cares about anymore is not interesting or useful

therefore, the more political, the more passionate, and the more controversial the peace prize is, the better. some people need to be pissed off in this world

The Internet? (4, Interesting)

arielCo (995647) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347342)

I guess we can nominate Anonymous as well. At least *someone* can go in a Guy Fawkes mask to collect the prize :)

Re:The Internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347714)

They should send GWB to collect Anonymous's award. Once he has it, he can put on the coolface and say, "Problem, Nobel Committee?"

Re:The Internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347870)

Thanks I guess, but I'm just too much of a coward to collect it.

Mod Parent Up !! (2, Funny)

Weezul (52464) | more than 3 years ago | (#35348320)

If Anonymous wins, Jacob Appelbaum (Tor project) could accept for brining Anonymity to dissidents.

And we'd all lol when TSA takes his laptop again upon reentering the U.S.

And maybe this way the /b/ tards running #anonops would actually figure out they should use Tor. :)

Imho, they should give the prize jointly to WikiLeaks and their anonymous source(s) , with Julian Assange accepting for WikiLeaks and an empty chair for Brian Manning. In fact, maybe two empty chairs, one for Assange and one for Manning, thus egging both Sweden and the U.S. lol

Peace? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347344)

Did wikileaks cause the destruction of all the worlds armaments overnight? Did I miss something?

Re:Peace? (3, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347394)

I'm pretty sure that whoever ends up causing the destruction of all the world's armaments overnight will Not be invited to the smoldering ruins of Norway to accept a peace prize...

Re:Peace? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347432)

Did Obama? Did Carter? Did Arafat? Did Sadat? Or Begin?

Re:Peace? (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347490)

No, but Gore's PowerPoint presentation did.

Al Gore, again?! (0)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347362)

Al Gore, again?!

Wikileaks needs 'Badass' award. (2)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347396)

Either toughest ass award, because one needs to have the toughest ass on the planet in order to brave going against all the established dirty dealers of the world, or, a heart as big as a mountain.

Regardless of how you look at it, they perfectly embody the definition of 'berserker'.

Vote Anonymous! (2, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347400)

People have the unfortunate tendency to commit terribly boring speeches when they win things. Anonymous, on the other hand, could keep it pithy.

"Thank you, thank you. We did it for the lulz." *Applause*

Re:Vote Anonymous! (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347478)

I don't anyone with a sin level of over 9000 could win.

Re:Vote Anonymous! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347652)

You accidentally a word.

OMG! They nominated WikiLeaks! (2, Insightful)

Tr3vin (1220548) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347404)

Wow, WikiLeaks got nominated! This has to be an important story. After all, it isn't like the nomination process is fairly simple or that there are 240 other nominees.

Helmut Kohl? WTF! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347412)

Well -- $subject says it all

Didn't Wikileaks kick off a revolution in Africa? (0)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347460)

I seem to remember hearing something about some country in Africa rigging elections and Wikileaks releasing info about that and it kick started a revolution of sorts. This is more than 6 months ago, IIRC.

Ambivalent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347466)

I think Wikileaks might reasonably deserve it; that and similar sites hold a lot of promise. I cringe, though, that it will be interpreted as a Nobel peace prize for Julian Assange... and that would be just reinforcement for that twit's meglomaniacal delusions.

Tunisian General ? (5, Interesting)

Jimpqfly (790794) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347488)

What about Rachid Ammar, the Tunisian General who :
- denied a direct order to shoot on civilians,
- put Ben Ali on a place with a kick in his ass,
- protected the people from armed militia ?

Re:Tunisian General ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347950)

It's too early to know what he is up to. He might just have been smart enough to save his ass. There are rumors he will be running for office, and if this article [almasryalyoum.com] is right he was about to stage a coup on behalf of the US and was only surprised by the sudden popular uprising. Would be a bit awkward if the Nobel went to the future Ben Ali.

Re:Tunisian General ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35348094)

No doubt he only did those things because WikiLeaks gave him the courage. Much in the same way WikiLeaks is directly responsible for the popular uprisings in the middle east. Come on, lets get back to honoring real heroes, like Assange, who was definently not raping anyone while Ammar put his life on the line.

Assange (1)

return 42 (459012) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347494)

Somehow I doubt they'd award it to Wikileaks while its leader is accused of rape in Sweden...

Re:Assange (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35348100)

The Peace Nobel committee is Norwegian. Norwegians hate Swedes.

Re:Assange (1)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 3 years ago | (#35348136)

Just because the leader did some unkosher things (And honestly, even that's in the air right now) doesn't mean the organization is bad.

I don't believe in conspiracy theories (4, Funny)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347510)

I don't believe in conspiracy theories but this smells like yet another way to get Julian into Norway where he will be kidnapped and brought to Sweden where the US forces will bring him to the world series court of justice.

Not Kohl again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347562)

Helmut Kohl did NOTHING at all to deserve the noble peace prize. Quite the contrary.
Before he was chancellor, he strongly objected to his predecessor Brand who wanted contact, peace and unity with the former eastern block states.
Kohl was war mongering and dismissed any plans to get rid of american nukes on german ground. Instead, due to Kohl, new Pershing II and Tomahawks were installed, leading to disruption of a 6 year long negotiations with the USSR.
(He did even more bullshit (incl. severely breaking the law))

In addition he did NOTHING for the reunification of Germany. He was the puppet and was allowed to nod while the russians, the brits, the french and the russians signed the contract. It have been the people of the GDR themselves who made it possible (similar to Libya, Egypt, etc)

The ONLY reason he is nominated are old friends from his very conservative, middle-right wing party (CDU) who believe in him like a Fuhrer and are thankful for his 4 term stunt as chancellor (aka "the lost years for germany").

Gosh, I still hate that stupid asshole-faggot.
(Famous Quote : I won't let dictate my politics by the vulgar. (Spoken while >300,000 demonstrated against him))

(InB4 : I'm german and old enough...)

At least there is no indication of ... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347590)

A nomination for facebook boy. He was already overrated for importance before Time awarded (presumably because he sold them your personal information on the cheap) person of the year to him. Alfred Nobel would likely be rolling - no, exploding - in his grave if his top prize were awarded that arbitrarily.

pretty much a joke (1)

BlueScreenO'Life (1813666) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347626)

These prizes are pretty much a joke, as credible as Time's "Person of the Year". To culminate the silliness, they should give the prize to "You", like Time once did.

Disgusting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347646)

Really? You're nominating the guy whose major accomplishment is hindering diplomatic communications--since now diplomats won't feel free to candidly discuss things in diplomatic cables--for a peace prize? If there were a Nobel prize for failure, the person who made this nomination would get it.

hillary on aljizzearah touting civilian armies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347694)

even more in line with the potential for an outbreak of peace world wide? weaponize them, before it's too late.

Wikileaks should win Nobel... (1)

bayankaran (446245) | more than 3 years ago | (#35348262)

Wikileaks should win the Nobel. It will make the prize more relevant to our times.
If there is an online campaign/voting to select the Nobel peace prize then Wikileaks got a great chance.
But Wikileaks is not going to win.
Like Maradona winning the most number of votes for the player of the century and FIFA selecting Pele as a safer choice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_Player_of_the_Century [wikipedia.org]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?