Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
News

WikiLeaks Nominated For 2011 Nobel Peace Prize 495

Posted by samzenpus
from the tattle-to-the-top dept.
mvar writes "Whistle-blower site WikiLeaks has been nominated for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize by a Norwegian politician who cited its role in freedom of speech, news agency NTB reported Wednesday. 'WikiLeaks is one of this century's most important contributors to freedom of speech and transparency,' parliamentarian Snorre Valen said in his nomination. Valen cited WikiLeaks' role in disclosing the assets of Tunisia's former president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and his nearest family, contributing to the protests that forced them into exile."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WikiLeaks Nominated For 2011 Nobel Peace Prize

Comments Filter:
  • Century (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Squeeonline (1323439) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @02:30PM (#35082512) Homepage
    I hate when people say things like "X of the century". It's only about 10% of the way there yet, don't go spoiling the rest for us if you have future sight.
    • Re:Century (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @02:43PM (#35082688)
      The Nobel Peace Prize means absolutely nothing now. It was blatantly given to someone who had not earned it and did not deserve it, and that person is Barack Obama. He wasn't even in office long enough to help or hinder peace for anyone when it was given to him. It's clear that this once-lofty prize has become infected and tainted by the very politics and cronyism that has corrupted most other institutions. So yeah, this is a nice gesture, but it's just a token one with no real meaning.

      Oh and for you more childish types who instantly polarize when Obama is mentioned, grow up. I don't care how nice and decent of a fellow he is. I don't care how much you like him. None of that has anything to do with it. He simply hadn't done anything one way or another for the cause of peace when the prize was awarded to him. There are many people who were more deserving of it than him -- heroes, scientists, doctors, philanthropists, lots of folks who have done much more good. They were all passed up. That's the point.
      • by vadim_t (324782)

        I agree that Obama shouldn't have been nominated for the reasons you said.

        But it seems like a difficult prize to award. People who do this sort of thing are rare.

        There are many people who were more deserving of it than him -- heroes, scientists, doctors, philanthropists, lots of folks who have done much more good. They were all passed up. That's the point.

        Got a list?

        • Re:Century (Score:5, Informative)

          by GigG (887839) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @03:05PM (#35082986)
          If there isn't someone worthy of it don't give it. It wasn't awarded in 1914-16, '23, '24, '28, '32, '39-'43, '48, '55, '56, '66 , '67 and 72.

          And as the recepient of the prize is supposed to go "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."

          Wiki leaks certainly didn't do anything to promote fraternity between nations or reduce standing armies or even promote peace.
      • Re:Century (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Locke2005 (849178) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @03:01PM (#35082916)
        I've explained this before: the Nobel Peace Prize was given to Obama specifically for not being George W. Bush! Unfortunately, Obama has not done quite as well at not being Bush than many of us had hoped...
        • When you recieve something, you feel an obligation to try to uphold it. Obama said himself that he didn't feel like he deserved it, but that he would do his best to live up to it. In many ways, the prize in this instance was meant to serve as a preemptive, "please don't become George W. Bush." That isn't exactly the same as "getting the prize just because he isn't George W. Bush."

          Maybe slashdotters are different from normal people, but what would you do if you recieved the Nobel Peace prize? Would it af

        • by nagnamer (1046654)

          So he got the nobel peace prize for something he was supposed to do? That's retarded.

          • by lennier (44736)

            So he got the nobel peace prize for something he was supposed to do? That's retarded.

            Temporally speaking, it's actually advanced.

        • by nelsonal (549144)
          Of course, that's why they gave it to Al Gore, as well. Perhaps the award needs a name change.
        • Re:Century (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Chapter80 (926879) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @05:49PM (#35085130)

          I've explained this before: the Nobel Peace Prize was given to Obama specifically for not being George W. Bush!

          You just named the qualifications of 7 Billion people.

          Where do I pick up my Nobel Peace Prize?

      • Re:Century (Score:5, Informative)

        by AntiBasic (83586) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @03:01PM (#35082934)

        To add the superfluousness of the nobel, the irony of the 2009 recipient hosting a dinner for the man who is imprisoning the 2010 winner was lost on the populace.

        They told me if I voted for McCain these things would happen.

      • by rs1n (1867908)

        You can see how the prize has become nothing more than a tool for political leverage -- albeit very poorly. This is true even when you consider the more recent recipient Liu Xiaobo. While he may be deserving of the prize, it is hard to ignore the political aspect -- i.e. getting China to make changes with respect to human rights. It almost feels as though this was actually the real intent of the prize, and that Liu Xiaobo was a nominee who happened to be an appropriate face for the prize.

        In the years before

      • by Microlith (54737)

        The Nobel Peace Prize means absolutely nothing now. It was blatantly given to someone who had not earned it and did not deserve it, and that person is Barack Obama. He wasn't even in office long enough to help or hinder peace for anyone when it was given to him.

        Some might say the prize was devalued when it was given to warmongers. Some might say the award was given as an encouragement, to try and influence his path.

        It's clear that this once-lofty prize has become infected and tainted by the very politics an

      • Re:Century (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dkleinsc (563838) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @03:16PM (#35083148) Homepage

        The Nobel Peace Prize means absolutely nothing now. It was blatantly given to someone who had not earned it and did not deserve it, and that person is Henry Kissinger. While in office, he did very little to promote peace, and often actively promoted war. It's clear that this once-lofty prize has become infected and tainted by the very politics and cronyism that has corrupted most other institutions. So yeah, this is a nice gesture, but it's just a token one with no real meaning.

        Oh and for you more childish types who instantly polarize when Kissinger is mentioned, grow up. I don't care how nice and decent of a fellow he is. I don't care how much you like him. None of that has anything to do with it. He simply hadn't done anything for the cause of peace when the prize was awarded to him. There are many people who were more deserving of it than him -- heroes, scientists, doctors, philanthropists, lots of folks who have done much more good. They were all passed up. That's the point.

      • The one who sounds polarized here is yourself bud. So you imply that anyone who responds in disagreement with you is "immature", ie you are right, end of story. Sounds like you might be the one needing some more years of fermenting.

        As for your assertion that Obama receiving the prize is somehow absurd, I would have to disagree. The Obama campaign and his work leading to his election was one of the most positive things to happen in the world at that time, most specificially in generating a positve image for

    • by treeves (963993)

      This is one of the most compelling comments on Slashdot about the century made thus far this decade! (this decade started last month btw)

      • I don't know about you, but the decade started for me a year and one month ago.

        No, I'm just kidding. Of course that doesn't make any sense. It actually started in mid-June, 2009.

    • But it's not X of the century. It's the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize. There is a difference.
  • I second - but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @02:31PM (#35082524)
    ...anonymously, as I am in the USA
  • Just great (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lev13than (581686) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @02:31PM (#35082526) Homepage

    If Wikileaks has been nominated, does that mean the actual prize going to be won by Mark Zuckerberg?

    • by Khopesh (112447)

      I agree; I thought Nobel Prizes could only be awarded to individuals, which appears to indicate Assange even if he is just a figurehead. As he said on Saturday Night Live,

      What are the differences between Mark Zuckerberg and me? I give private information on corporations to you for free, and I’m a villain. Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he’s Man of the Year.

      • by Kneo24 (688412)
        I thought the same too, but after looking through the list on wikipedia there are winners who are an institution and then a person won in the same year. I imagine the person is most likely a figure head of that institution, or someone really important who helped said institution.
  • by xophos (517934) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @02:32PM (#35082542)

    Just look who got that one before.

    • by H0p313ss (811249) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @02:49PM (#35082748)

      Just look who got that one before.

      2010 - LIU XIAOBO for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China.

      2009 - BARACK OBAMA for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.

      2008 - MARTTI AHTISAARI for his important efforts, on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts.

      2007 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC) and ALBERT ARNOLD ( AL) GORE JR. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.

      2006 - MUHAMMAD YUNUS and GRAMEEN BANK for their efforts to create economic and social development from below.

      2005 - INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY and MOHAMED ELBARADEI for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way.

      2004 - WANGARI MAATHAI for her contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace

      2003 - SHIRIN EBADI for her efforts for democracy and human rights

      2002 - JIMMY CARTER JR., former President of the United States of America, for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development

      2001- UNITED NATIONS & KOFI ANNAN, United Nations Secretary General

      2000 - KIM DAE JUNG for his work for democracy and human rights in South Korea and in East Asia in general, and for peace and reconciliation with North Korea in particular.

      1999 - DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS (MÉDECINS SANS FRONTIÈRES), Brussels, Belgium.

      1998 - JOHN HUME and DAVID TRIMBLE for their efforts to find a peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland.

      1997 - INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO BAN LANDMINES (ICBL) and JODY WILLIAMS for their work for the banning and clearing of anti-personnel mines.

      1996 - The prize was awarded jointly to: CARLOS FELIPE XIMENES BELO and JOSE RAMOS-HORTA for their work towards a just and peaceful solution to the conflict in East Timor.

      1995 - The prize was awarded jointly to: JOSEPH ROTBLAT and to the PUGWASH CONFERENCES ON SCIENCE AND WORLD AFFAIRS for their efforts to diminish the part played by nuclear arms in international politics and in the longer run to eliminate such arms.

      1994 - The prize was awarded joinly to: YASSER ARAFAT , Chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO, President of the Palestinian National Authority. SHIMON PERES , Foreign Minister of Israel. YITZHAK RABIN , Prime Minister of Israel. for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East.

      1993 - The prize was awarded jointly to: NELSON MANDELA Leader of the ANC. FREDRIK WILLEM DE KLERK President of the Republic of South Africa.

      1992 - RIGOBERTA MENCHU TUM, Guatemala. Campaigner for human rights, especially for indigenous peoples.

      1991 - AUNG SAN SUU KYI, Burma. Oppositional leader, human rights advocate.

      1990 - MIKHAIL SERGEYEVICH GORBACHEV , President of the USSR, helped to bring the Cold War to an end.

      1989 - THE 14TH DALAI LAMA (TENZIN GYATSO) , Tibet. Religious and political leader of the Tibetan people.

      Clearly a wretched hive of scum and villainy... if you're a conservative.

      • by qmaqdk (522323)

        Wonder why they never put Gandhi on that list.

      • by darjen (879890)

        2010 LIU XIAOBO - ardent supporter of President Bush's wars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_xiabo#Political_views [wikipedia.org]

        2009 BARACK OBAMA - escalator of Bush's wars, clearly has made them his own.

        1919 Woodrow Wilson - drug the US into the first world war based on lies, despite running on keeping US out.

        1925 Austen Chamberlain - British war imperialist who opposed Irish independence.
        Charles Gates Dawes - For his collecting war reparations from Germany

        Lots o

        • by Minwee (522556)

          No kidding.

          2008 - MARTTI AHTISAARI - Who spent every single day from 1994 to 2000 seeking out and destroying molecular Oxygen, leaving behind poisonous Carbon Dioxide in its place.

          2002 - JIMMY CARTER JR., - A man who confessed to murdering millions of members of the arachis hypogaea family, and who has somehow avoided being tried for his crimes so far.

          It just gets worse the deeper you dig. Even the 14th Dalai Lama scores 800 milihitlers on the evilometer for his part in the mysterious deaths of his thi

      • by elrous0 (869638) *

        I wonder if, if they win, the U.S. will boycott like the Chinese did last year. It would be worth over-inflating Assange's ego just to see that epic level of hypocrisy on display.

  • Wow (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rsborg (111459) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @02:32PM (#35082552) Homepage

    I'm sure this will be suppressed somehow, but this is quite appropriate in my opinion.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      >>>I'm sure this will be suppressed somehow

      You mean like how China refused to let the Nobel prize winner go to his own ceremony? Maybe between now and then, the US will arrest Assange and do the same thing. That would truly be ironic.

      (US acting like China).

    • by kiwimate (458274)

      This blows my mind for sheer paranoia.

      1. 1. It's already out there - see that link in the summary?
      2. 2. Doing a search for wikileaks nobel shows the top results as newsfeeds from AP and Reuters on Yahoo, the Reuters feed on Bing, and, err, neither of them on Google, but at least the top results are news articles about it.

      So I think the notion that it'll be suppressed is a wee bit silly. Once it's out there, it's out there!

      * and apparently the ordered list tag no longer works, or at least not in preview.

  • They would deserve it more than Obama, which doesn't necessarily imply that they'd deserve it.

  • by damn_registrars (1103043) <damn.registrars@gmail.com> on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @02:34PM (#35082592) Homepage Journal
    At first I thought it said

    Van Halen cited WikiLeaks' role in disclosing the assets of Tunisia's former president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and his nearest family, contributing to the protests that forced them into exile

    But I'm pretty sure they don't have the credentials to nominate someone for a Nobel Prize...

  • A nonstory (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sonny Yatsen (603655) * on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @02:35PM (#35082594) Journal

    In 2010, 237 nominations were made for the Peace Prize, 38 of which were organizations. While it's of some apparent interest that Wikileaks got a nomination, it is one of many and nomination is open to a lot of people.

  • Worthless (Score:2, Informative)

    by MarkRose (820682)

    Why would anyone care about the Nobel Peace Prize? It's worthless.They gave it to Obama, before he even did anything, who has gone on to escalate wars, both military and economic.

    Frankly, I would turn down such a prize. It no longer stands for anything.

    • They gave it to Obama, before he even did anything

      In fairness, they really gave it to the idea of Obama [artvoice.com] much more so than to Obama himself. And really, the idea of Obama is what many people voted for, while in the end we have all received for president the man Obama.

  • The last prize was given to a man (Obama) as a tool to promote peace, and not because of past contributions of the recipient toward peace. The world was tired of the Bush administration and their pro-war foreign policy, and the committee was banking on Obama making a change by giving him a major incentive to do so. Now it has become even more of a political tool with the nomination of Wikileaks. I cannot see how people can remain objective when it comes to considering Wikileaks as a candidate for the peace
    • Here's a hint: in most parts of the world, Wikileaks is celebrated without "but"s or "if"s . Just because your country in particular is different doesn't mean much in the overall picture. The fact that it Wikileaks generates controversy in your country says more about your country than Wikileaks.

      • by drakaan (688386)

        ...and the wisdom of the crowd is always right, then? I'm going to go re-read 1984 with that in mind.

        The reason Wikileaks generates controversy in the US is that there is diversity of opinion here. We aren't all of one mind on a huge number of issues.

        I personally think that what Assange did is fine (he's a civilian), and the soldier who broke just about every opsec-related rule there is should be court-martialed, but that's not the topic.

        The question of whether Wikileaks deserves a nomination focuses narr

    • by basotl (808388)
      Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. Liu Xiaobo was the last to be awarded in 2010 and arguably a more deserving individual.
    • by Kneo24 (688412)

      Correction: Obama was rewarded the peace prize in 2009.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laureates [wikipedia.org]

    • by vux984 (928602)

      The last prize was given to a man (Obama) as a tool to promote peace...

      Actually the last prize was given to Liu Xiaobo.

      The prize for Obama... I'm mixed. I think his rhetoric and election message was a genuine force for world peace, even though he wasn't president and hadn't done anything policy-wise. He was an advocate for peace, and that message reached and affected a lot of people.

      I don't necessarily know that he was the single most significant advocate for peace of the year... but I don't begrudge him th

    • This is a quote taken from my local newspaper, by Raj Patel on American discontent with President Obama.
      "A lot of us thought of him as the pizza delivery guy of change, where we would sit on our couches and he would being hot, steaming change in 30 minutes."

      Which leads me to think, cultures and civilization can be easily destroyed by the drop of a bomb, to rebuild that will take time.

  • by The O Rly Factor (1977536) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @02:50PM (#35082772)
    All members of the Nobel Committee have been apprehended by the US government, due to suspicion by the US government that they are aiding in terrorist activities.
  • The Nobel Committee is losing it. I'd love to receive the Nobel Peace Prize for telling people a bunch of shit they already know.
  • Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tylersoze (789256) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @02:53PM (#35082822)

    Since they've already given out two Nobel Peace Prizes for "not being George W Bush" (Gore and Obama) stands to reason a third would be in order.

    Man, just think how awful of a President you have to be that people get prizes for being the exact opposite of you.

    • by Nadaka (224565)

      Obama is hardly the exact opposite of Bush. He has slightly darker skin and curlier hair, but most of his actual policy is aligned with Bush to within a few percent.

  • by unity100 (970058) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @02:54PM (#35082848) Homepage Journal
    As far as the last 30 years concerned, they are the ONLY source that has contributed to freedom of speech and the public knowing what their governments were doing. last major flop was during watergate, and both the governments and corporations learned how to deal with that - buy buying out all media into conglomerates. result ? no watergate in the last 30 years.

    and no, cryptome, unfortunately, didnt mean shit.

    first, they didnt have any success in bringing the issues to the masses into mass media - they never went into danger and publicity like wikileaks did, so it was easy for mainstream media to totally ignore them - just like how they totally kept public in the dark about acta, if you want an example -

    and,

    they were inflitrated by nsa right at the start :

    http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1910704&cid=34556662 [slashdot.org]

    rendering them totally ineffective.
  • If it weren't for them, the events going on in the mid-east right now wouldn't happen.

    There, I said it. Agreed?

  • Meaningless. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BaronHethorSamedi (970820) <thebaronsamedi@gmail.com> on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @03:08PM (#35083020)
    The Nobel Peace Prize, according to Alfred Nobel's will, should be awarded to the person (or organization) 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."

    Whatever you might think about WikiLeaks' contributions to free speech politics, government transparency, etc., it's hard to see how it's filled any of those criteria. The release of diplomatic cables arguably did a lot to damage fraternity between nations.

    Of course, as others have observed, it seems to have been some time since the letter of Nobel's will has meant anything to the Peace Prize committee.
    • Re:Meaningless. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by vux984 (928602) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @03:21PM (#35083242)

      The release of diplomatic cables arguably did a lot to damage fraternity between nations.

      The release of other things did a lot of good.

      The release of the diplomatic cables did not end the world, and while the governments were embarrassed the actual people I think have been brought together by the frank disclosure that their leaders were being duplicitous jerks. (We all knew this all along, of course. But just putting it out in the open still makes a difference.

      • Re:Meaningless. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by BaronHethorSamedi (970820) <thebaronsamedi@gmail.com> on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @05:39PM (#35085038)
        I don't flatly disagree with any of your observations. My point is simply that "doing a lot of good," "making a difference," or even the laudable goal of holding governments to account for their actions are not a basis for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize.

        I don't think even Wikileaks would suggest that their mission directly entails the reduction of standing armies, the promotion of peace congresses, or fostering fraternity between nations. Their claimed purposes have more to do, again, with transparency, free speech, and public accountability. Those are all good things, but they are not the principles on which Nobel originally wanted the prize awarded.

        The fact that there is no Nobel Prize awarded for good work in advancing free speech principles does not mean the criteria for awarding an existing prize should be distorted just so we can give a shout out to some entity whose political aims we like or agree with. Unfortunately, this is more or less what the Peace Prize has become--an amorphous love letter from the Nobel Committee to whoever happens to be doing what they like at the moment.
        • By shining a light into a cave you may see enough to avoid danger. You may also awaken a den of bears who attack and eat you. Don't blame the light for the result -- the light is neither good nor evil -- but instead use it to attain knowledge and then use that knowledge for good. Sometimes a frank discussion leads to greater understanding and sometimes it leads to a fight. One hopes we are capable at some point of having that grown-up discussion.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Microlith (54737)

      The release of diplomatic cables arguably did a lot to damage fraternity between nations.

      Only if you see fraternity between nations as the interactions between their governments. The people of those nations, on the other hand, may get along much better as a result.

      Humiliate abusive governments, make it obvious what they do. Both the US Federal Government and its meddling in the affairs of other nations and the oppressive governments of the middle east. Maybe then we can come to an understanding without wort

  • by Tablizer (95088) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @03:15PM (#35083134) Journal

    ...the winner has already been leaked, and WL was not it.

There are never any bugs you haven't found yet.

Working...