President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. It is a great honor for this country and for the President. For civil libertarians, however, the prize is a bit of a mixed message. Obama has blocked any investigation of war crimes or torture in violation of international law. He has also supported the limitation of free speech to allow the criminalization of criticism of religion. With less than a year in office, the selection may send the wrong message to Obama that personality rather than principles succeed in both domestic and international politics.
I know that it is not going to be popular to question the basis for this selection, but Obama has not proven to be exactly a ray of light on questions of human rights and international law. He is now in violation of various international agreements over torture and United Nations officials have denounced the United States for refusing to carry out its duty to prosecute those responsible for the torture program. Yet, the Nobel Committee has chosen this time to award him with the Peace Prize — undermining the importance of the Geneva Conventions.
To his considerable credit, he has re-examined our positions on a host of international agreements, including most notably global warming. However, one would expect to wait for at least a year to see if he carried through on such statements and policies. I believe if you look objectively at the record, it is hard to see why Obama warrants such an honor at this time. At least Teddy Roosevelt helped end the Russo-Japanese war and supported the creation of the Hague arbitration court. To put it simply, Obama’s selection is the triumph of hope over experience and he will have to earn this distinction in the years to come.
What do you think?
I also voted for Pres. Obama. However, I do not believe that requires an “apology” for any reason whatsoever, much less a sense of shame. One makes judgments. The alternatives were absurd. Green candidates have as much credibility among voters as green cheese, and voting for marginal candidates has never accomplished anything other than to throw elections to people like George Bush. Maintaining purity of principle in the voting booth worked fine for me when I was a kid casting my vote for George McGovern, but at some point we all grow up and try to work with possibilities.
I am also mystified by this award, not of course for any of the reasons currently pouring out of every right wing cesspool in the country, but because it appears premature at best. I tend to agree with Ryan, but I believe that an awful lot of hope and expectation has gone into this selection, the justification for which remains to be seen.
BVM, there will be no trial. If you were actually a real person, I’d be happy to place a friendly wager on it. I might even give you some odds. The “trial” date is part of a case management order that is entered in every action. It is merely a schedule of dates for events which may or may not occur.
Congratulations Mr. President. And to those of you questioning whether this is appropriate, let me remind you that Woodrow Wilson, who did more to expand American imperialism in the early 20th century, won the prize. I do not think you have to be perfect to win this. Honestly, I think I agree with Ann Marie Cox who stated that this has become the “anybody but George W. Bush” prize.
A common claim is that they should have waited for results. Yet if they had waited for results, it could have been too late. Who knows what will happen with Iran? Giving him this was a way to push for the continued pursuit of peace. That does not mean that questions about the intentions of other countries should be dismissed, but negotiations, not war, should be the primary way to change behavior. It is much better to reach an agreement than to force it down the throat of another country.
Did he deserve it? No. Was it a right decision? Yes.
Buelah,
You mistake what I said as a defense. What I essentially said is I have nothing to defend. You assume shame where there is none and assign stupidity because some of us choose not to blatantly piss away a vote on the Green Party this time around – a decision which in itself could be characterized as “stupid” if that’s the game you want to play. Careful there or that false sense of superiority is going to trip you up.
BiS,
There were several independents or one from the Green Party that would have made a far better truth telling president than the POS we have.
I know all you folks who voted for him really need to defend yourselves for your vote. That is what people do when they make such a monumental mistake. Instead of fessing up.
BTW: I voted Nader after Dennis was screwed by the system that knighted the O man.
The shame is that those who think of themselves as such great thinkers were so gullible, and yes, stupid.
Buelah,
As opposed to what other choice? McSame and the Ice Queen? That “ashamed” high horse is riding low to the ground there, pard. Obama has done nothing but shown that both parties are equally broken, just in different ways. But ashamed to vote against the party that sold America’s civil rights to Saudi Arabia so their titular leader’s family could profit?
Ashamed never even crossed my mind. Pissed off I had such limited choice, but not ashamed.
And I was a Kucinich guy.
But disappointed? Yeah, he was a Senator so that made him suspect from the start – that’s a given he’s a narcissist at minimum. In practice however, Obama has proven to be a real lying sack of fascist crap as far as I’m concerned. He just has a different hand running his mouth than the last group of fascists in Bush Co. He’s all talk and no walk when it comes to fixing what’s wrong with both our government and our economy: from the Rule of Law to paying bonuses to the criminals who wrecked the economy instead of putting them in prison. But that has less to do with party than systemic corruption. And if you contend McSame would/could have done better? I’m just going to have to laugh in your face and disagree. The only way for us to fix Washington at this point is to clean house starting with K St.
But paraphrase Clint, “Ashamed ain’t got nothin’ to do with it.”
The Nobel Peace Prize and UN have been corrupted.
What’s up? no chatter on Obama’s jury trial in CA? The Obama eligibility trial date has been confirmed.
Where is Vince? They might need him out there in the federal court to give testimony on the fraudulent COLB’s.
J Guy:
exactly what has he done to earn it? Isn’t this award the equivalent to giving one to Einstein prior to his work just because he was a good guy and smart and in a couple of years he will probably do some good? Is the Nobel Prize the booby prize for not getting the Olympics?
What about Chinese and Cuban and Zimbabwean dissidents, who are actually doing something now?
J,
Which is why I was we’re also complaining about Albert Lutuli, Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Mpilo Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Kofi Annan, and Wangari Muta Maathai being laureates.
Or it could be that we don’t think that President Obama has done enough (yet) to be included with those (mostly) great men and women who have received the award in the past. Although he does have the Lugar–Obama Nonproliferation Legislation to his credit.
Over at Red State, they are chalking this up to an affirmative action quota. How special.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/10/09/barack-obama-wins-nobel-peace-prize/
I voted for Mr. Obama.
I didn’t. It was obvious long ago that he was lying: the same old BS from the Democratic party Sheople’s Messiah Complex.
Nothing changes. Just prettier words in the lies.
Whomever voted for this man should be ashamed.
I voted for Mr. Obama. However, this is a travesty and it only demeans the ‘Prize’. Dummin’ down, grade inflation, gradin’ on da Big Curve, and now lowering the standard for what I once considered the greatest ‘prize’ given by humanity to one who was actually deserving as a peacemaker.
People are quick to dismiss this without looking at the criteria that was used to pick this years winner. They were specifically looking someone actively involved in a process to enhance peace around the world.
Obama’s work nuclear proliferation (which has already resulted in one treaty) and a renewed since of international cooperation clearly fall into that category. I think his speeches in Cairo, Berlin and Prague were major factors in the decision. Lets not forget, some previous winners did nothing but give speeches about peace or another narrower subject.
All that being said, I’m not here to argue the wisdom of the choice. I agree with Professor Turley about the human rights issues that still need to be resolved, and would prefer to see this award delayed until those matters are settled. Hopefully winning this award will be a reminder of the great responsibility that he has, and we’ll see more movement on the really important issues.
Mespo:
that is certainly a stinging indictment (the Lewis Carroll quote). That quote is wrong on a few levels.
Was he nutsy cuckoo?
For those of you who don’t agree with the president receiving the award, YOUR A RACIST. Some people just can’t except that a black man won the prize.
LOL
I can’t accept that a black man (or any man) could be given a “peace” prize after raining down drone flown missiles down on innocent children.
If THAT makes me a racist, so be it.
For those of you who don’t agree with the president receiving the award, YOUR A RACIST. Some people just can’t except that a black man won the prize.
I am also surprised by the pick. I am not sure if the committee wanted to curry favor or encourage more progressive action from the President, but either way it is premature at best, or ill-advised, at worst. I am reminded again of Lewis Carroll (as I am so many times) and his prescient commentary on modern times:
“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?”
(BuelahMan, anyone can be nominated.)
Yes, apparently so. But this doesn’t speak very well of the nominees’ judgment (either Bush or Obama).
I wonder how many babies I need to kill to get the nomination?