Majority of Nobel Committee Reportedly Objected to Awarding Obama Prize

225px-official_portrait_of_barack_obamanobel-medal_thumbnail_0Various people, including civil libertarians, have criticized the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama given his expansion on Bush policies and his opposition to war crimes investigations. Others have criticized the fact that he was nominated after less than two weeks in office and selected after less than a year in office. Now, it appears that the majority of the Nobel committee had the same objections and had rejected him for the award.

While the committee said that the decision was “unanimous,” three of the five members reportedly objected to the award. However, two members — Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland and Sissel Roenbeck — were strongly in favor of the award. However, it appears that they prevailed in securing the votes needed.

I remain mystified how a person earned a Nobel nomination after 12 days in office. For one of the people who failed to get the prize, click here.

For the full story, click here.

29 thoughts on “Majority of Nobel Committee Reportedly Objected to Awarding Obama Prize”

  1. etre,

    For your beginning quest to understand some of Mr. Obama’s failings

    Quoted excerpts from a Glenn Greenwald article today:

    British High Court rejects U.S./British cover-up of torture evidence
    (updated below)

    There is a vital development — a new ruling from the British High Court — in a story about which I’ve written many times before: the extraordinary joint British/U.S. effort to cover up the brutal torture which Binyam Mohamed suffered at the hands of the CIA while in Pakistan and while he was “rendered” by the U.S. to various countries. While Mohamed, a British resident, was in American custody, the CIA told British intelligence agents exactly what was done to him, and those British agents recorded what they were told in various memos.

    Throughout 2009, Mohamed’s lawyers, as well as various international newspapers, repeatedly petitioned the British High Court to re-visit its decision on the ground that the Obama administration had replaced the Bush administration, and surely the anti-torture Obama would never embrace or maintain the same threat. But, obviously in conjunction with British officials, the Obama administration took numerous steps to convey to the British High Court that they were indeed re-iterating the same Bush threats, including…


  2. etre,

    adieu to you, boo hoo, you make me cry. you have sadden me by your reply so now I must say good bye. good bye

    etre adieu

  3. You people are hilarious.

    @Former Federal LEO –
    Jill has provided me with her opinion, and nothing more. I can appreciate that she has one, but so does everyone else.

    @Jill –
    I’ve responded to you three times, above. You haven’t dismantled anything, I’m afraid. Nor have I shifted points (other than to address things which you’ve posted) – in fact, I noted in a previous post that this was getting off-topic for this thread, and attempted to return it to an appropriate track. Stating reality isn’t hatemongering, of course not. Posting that people should get past the partisan rhetoric, subsequently adopting partisan rhetoric, making assertions that our President is trashing our Constitution and our country (wonder what your opinion of Bush is), and then failing to support your assertions…

    Regrettably, there is obviously no discussion here.

  4. etre,

    I indeed did answer you question directly. You keep shifting to other points as I dismantle your prior ones. You will have to do your own research but it isn’t difficult. Much of it can be done just as FFLEO says, on the blog but you could look into cases before the courts to find your answers. If stating reality is hate-mongering to you then you have a unique definition of hate-mongering. I would call your post an attempt to slur someone because you have no real response.

  5. etre,

    Jill provided you with the most parsimoniously direct answer possible to anyone who adequately understands that the President of the United States of America is the Commander-in-Chief, outranks all other U.S. military officers, and is therefore responsible and accountable for all U.S. Military actions and causalities—foreign and domestic—including collateral deaths of civilians and property damage.

    If you have accessed this blawg for more than a day or two, you can read all about Mr. Obama’s broken pledges, complicities with continuing Bush’s torture policies, and violations of International Treaties/Laws, ad infinitum…

    Do your own research here because it is all well documented within the virtual walls of the Turley Blawg and then return with your inquiries to which someone might endeavor a reply.


    etre wrote:

    “From that larger perspective, his receipt of the award is a no-brainer.”

    On that statement, you and I can most certainly agree. The committee members employed “no brain” when the ‘gave’ the “award” to Mr. Obama. It was a real ‘no-brainer’…

  6. Well, I suppose without any citations to support your opinion on such serious allegations, there isn’t anything for me to adequately refute. Ironically, you seem to be indulging in exactly what your first post repudiated: claiming that Obama is abrogating our civil liberties and dismantling our Constitution without any grounds is just a pseudo-civil way to hatemonger.

    “We will not agree on this issue.” Indeed.

  7. Actually the drones use is illegal and of course there’s that whole problem of torture, both not stopping it and not prosecuting those who engage/d in it. Then there is the abrogation of our civil liberties and the dismantling of our Constitution. With these things in mind I simply cannot agree that his receipt of the award is a no-brainer. We will not agree on this issue.

  8. @Jill –

    Actually, the drones are not illegal under international law. I’ll assume you already knew that drones are launched from bases within Pakistan. They come close to violating some vague sections on UN doctrine, but due to the agreed consent of Pakistan to pursue such a method, there is no question of illegality.

    Their use has indeed (and unfortunately) resulted in civilian deaths. I’m quite sure that, were there a better way to wage that war, Obama would certainly choose the path that results in the highest humanitarian result.

    However, I think we’re leaving the original point of the post, the awarding of the Peace prize to Obama. I am definitely biased in favor of Obama, and while I don’t believe him to be perfect by any means, I think (on balance), he’s doing an excellent job with the tatters that he inherited. I believe the Nobel committee realized that, on balance, he has done more for the ideal of ‘peace’ this year than anyone else has. From that larger perspective, his receipt of the award is a no-brainer.

Comments are closed.