
Give Manning and Snowden the Nobel Peace Prize - abdullahkhalids
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/03/give_manning_and_snowden_the_nobel_peace_prize/
======
methehack
I'd give it to Snowden; Manning I'm not so sure about.

I may be alone on this one, but I think Snowden and Manning are very
different.

I think Manning's actions were a lot sloppier than Snowden's. Yes, Manning
courageously uncovered crimes, and that's to be acknowledged. But, in my
opinion, he wasn't careful enough about the impact of what he was releasing,
specifically all the diplomatic communications. He seemed to have a stance
that all information should be public by definition. I don't agree with that.
I'm too practical -- I don't see how that would work at all. Further, I
honestly think it undermined the democratic process to indiscriminately make
it all public. Maybe I should be blaming wikileaks for this approach.

In contrast, Snowden has shown the world's people that it's on candid camera
on the US tax payer's dime -- illegally and unbeknownst toa almost everyone,
including most of Congress. What he's uncovered is fundamentally undemocratic
and very, very dangerous. That's worth a blown whistle. In my opinion, it does
a disservice to Snowden to lump Manning together with him.

~~~
paul9290
I disagree as Manning's action prompted the Arab Spring, which continues on in
many Middle Eastern countries. More democratic Middle Eastern countries is
better for the US and for citizens of those countries.

Snowden in my eyes revealed and reminded us what we already learned back in
2006. Though he revealed the size and scope of the US surveillance program and
inner linings.

~~~
_pmf_
> I disagree as Manning's action prompted the Arab Spring

You mean like David Hasselhoff brought down the Berlin Wall?

------
nilved
The same award that was given to the person who's actively prosecuting them?
Why would they want their name next to that piece of shit?

~~~
nostrademons
FWIW, this happens all the time:

In 1927 Ferdinand Buisson (France) and Ludwig Quidde (Germany) shared it "for
contributions to Franco-German popular reconciliation".

In 1973 Henry Kissinger (US) and Le Duc Tho (North Vietnam) shared it for the
cease fire of the Vietnam war.

In 1978 Anwar Saddat (Egypt) and Menachem Begin (Israel) shared it for the
Camp David accords.

In 1993 Nelson Mandela and Frederik Willem de Klerk (South Africa) shared it
for the end of apartheid

In 1994 Yasser Arafat (Palestine), Yitzhak Rabin, and Shimon Peres (Israel)
shared it for...well, bringing peace between Israel and Palestine, except that
hasn't exactly happened yet.

The Peace Prize has always been somewhat aspirational - it's a way not only to
reward accomplishments toward world peace, but also to shame & goad people in
power into working toward a more peaceful world. Obama's prize was very much
in that vein: it sent the signal "We like where you're going, so you better
keep it up and live up to the award you just won." There's nothing
contradictory about giving it to his opponents as well.

~~~
freerobby
The irony is even more inescapable than that. It was founded by a guy who
invented explosives and, who only created the prize after reading an incorrect
reporting of his own death and being frustrated at how he was eulogized.

> The obituary stated, Le marchand de la mort est mort ("The merchant of death
> is dead")[1] and went on to say, "Dr. Alfred Nobel, who became rich by
> finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before, died
> yesterday."[11] Alfred was disappointed with what he read and concerned with
> how he would be remembered.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Nobel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Nobel)

~~~
jacquesm
Maybe we could misreport a few more deaths? Sounds like an excellent way to
get people to realize they're jerks.

------
D9u
In my somewhat convoluted estimation, the Nobel Peace Prize has ceased to hold
any special meaning since it was awarded to someone who never really did
anything to earn it other than become elected to an office whereupon the very
foundations of freedom have been increasingly attacked through the expansion
of policies which that Nobel Laureate so vocally opposed during his campaign
for office.

~~~
davej
I agree with your estimation. It would still be very meaningful to give it to
Manning/Snowden though. This is for the simple reason that it was given to
Obama before and Obama validated the prize by attending the ceremony and
giving a lecture in Oslo.

The foundation made a big mistake by giving it to somebody who did nothing but
win an election campaign. Giving it to Manning/Snowden would allow them to
claw back some credibility as a progressive non-political organisation. It
would also implicitly indicate to the world that they made a big mistake in
2009, it would take an organisation with strong character to make that
decision.

------
hnha
I would feel utterly ridiculed and belittled if I was a whistleblower and I
would be put among the previous awardees.

Why is the Nobel prize so prestigious?

~~~
nostrademons
Because yay money! Yay speaking engagements! Yay getting a parking space in
Berkeley!

~~~
GFischer
"Yay getting a parking space in Berkeley!"

I had to look up that one :) . It's only for Nobel laureates who work in
Berkeley.

Apparently the University of Chicago offers its Nobel Prize winners in
economics free lunch at the Business School cafeteria.

[http://www.metafilter.com/108251/The-golden-parking-
pass](http://www.metafilter.com/108251/The-golden-parking-pass)

------
evadne
Take the 2009 one back first, dudes.

~~~
Millennium
Meh. 2007 was way more ridiculous.

The Nobel Peace Prize has become so overloaded in recent years that either
it's time to endow some new prizes (and let the Peace Prize actually be about,
you know, PEACE again) or end the thing entirely. Frankly, I think there's
some value in having an actual peace prize, so I would rather see the former
happen.

~~~
WestCoastJustin
For those who do not know, _The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Al Gore "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"._ [1]

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Nobel_Peace_Prize](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Nobel_Peace_Prize)

------
hosh
It's time. No more secrets.

Security and privacy are driven by fear and vulnerability. Information and
intelligence gives a party leverage, an advantage -- and these too are also
driven by fear and vulnerability.

These are burdens we don't need anymore. Much of the concepts and frame around
civilization is in relation to barbarism and keeping order, of Rule of Law
trumping Rule of Power, of fairness and equality. These notions are at the end
of life, and we need to be reaching for something better.

------
mtgx
I think it would help, because it would make it a lot harder for others to
associate them with spies or something without getting ridiculed.

I'm also hoping the next US president commits to giving Manning (and Snowden
depending on the situation then) pardon. If I was a civil libertarian running
for president, and I'd want to show real proof that I'm committed to a much
more transparent government, and the roll back of the surveillance state - I'd
start with that promise, and use it in my campaign, and say my first task as a
president would be to pardon Manning.

~~~
greyman
I don't fully agree regarding Manning. He revealed diplomatic cables, which
was basically a work of U.S. diplomats, who have been writing "honest"
assessments from inside those countries, under the condition that it remains
secret. In my opinion, it was unfair to the U.S. gov that it was published -
and I say this as a non-American. If leaking this should be automatically
pardoned, we would first need a completely different model of how foreign
diplomacy should work. (But I agree the life-time sentence is too harsh).

Snowden case is different. (I also don't like that those two guys are
mentioned together).

~~~
rjsamson
Agreed. It seems to be a bit of an unpopular opinion, but what Snowden did and
what Manning did are entirely different, and lumping Snowden in with Manning
detracts from the careful and considered manner in which Snowden has conducted
the leaks.

~~~
mpyne
It _shouldn 't_ be an unpopular opinion, as Snowden was careful to note in his
very first interview how his actions were different from Manning's.

------
Millennium
I thought the Nobel Peace Prize was supposed to be about promoting peace, not
sticking it to The Man. What Snowden and Manning did was far more along the
lines of the latter than the former.

~~~
drewblaisdell
That is a bit reductive-- Snowden wouldn't be so out of place on this list:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates)

------
ajb
A lot of people don't understand what the Nobel Peace Prize is for. It's not
to _recognize old guys who promoted peace during their life_ ; it's to
_promote peace_.

Imagine that you have made some millions and you are deciding between starting
the next ycombinator and using the money to promote peace. How would you go
about the latter? Pretty much like the former: risky investments with a big
potential payoff, only in peace rather than shares.

Saying that giving the award to Obama or Kissinger was a mistake is like
saying that YCombinator is stupid because most of their investments don't pay
off. If they only gave money to companies which they knew were going to be
successful, _they wouldn 't be having any effect on their success_.

So, Is it worth giving Manning and/or Snowden the Peace Prize? It would
certainly focus the media's attention on them, but they have it already to
some extent. It might work against the narrative that the securicrats are
promoting. In some sense, Manning is a better candidate than Snowden: Manning
released information which showed injustices of the Iraq and Afghan wars,
whereas Snowden's releases are thus far an issue of whether domestic security
is out of control. The Nobel remit covers the former; I'm not sure it covers
the latter.

~~~
nilved
> A lot of people don't understand what the Nobel Peace Prize is for. It's not
> to recognize old guys who promoted peace during their life; it's to promote
> peace.

Wikipedia and the majority of these comments disagree with this -- are you
certain?

~~~
ajb
Well, the fact that Nobel specified that the prize should be awarded "for work
done in the preceding year" certainly argues that he didn't intend to wait for
the judgement of history.

------
mikemoka
We need people like them in every single country if we want to live in a world
actually guided by public interest and not by the most powerful of the
particular interests.

------
znowi
I don't think diligent servants of the US have the guts to do that. Besides,
they already awarded it to Obama in 2009 for his _extraordinary efforts to
strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples_.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize)

------
northwest
No!

Tell Obama to forward his.

------
tome
It's unlikely to happen, but it's not actually impossible. However the Peace
Prize is not particularly meaningful.

------
adrianlmm
Why does Snowden deserves it?

~~~
northwest
Is this a serious question?

~~~
adrianlmm
Yes, what is the argument?

~~~
northwest
He gave planet Earth an important wake-up call: Democracy is about to be shot
in the head.

(And personally, I don't think we should expect more whistle blowers in the
coming years, because the NSA sure as hell will make sure it will never happen
again, so this makes this moment even more important.)

He did all this showing us that he's ready to be tortured and die for this
cause.

EDIT: This is history being written. What happens now and what does not will
define the future we and our children will have. I thought this was 100%
obvious.

~~~
nilved
Truthfully, we already knew just about everything Snowden leaked except for
the the name PRISM. But it was through his leak that it got on mainstream
news.

