SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize: OK, He's A Nice Guy, But ...
Is it really appropriate for the Nobel Peace Prize -- granted "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" -- to be given to a man who, as Commander-in-Chief, is still presiding over two wars, in which, as the announcement was made, civilians may well have been dying as the result of his orders?
Is it really appropriate for the Nobel P
Oct 09, 2009
Is it really appropriate for the Nobel Peace Prize -- granted "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" -- to be given to a man who, as Commander-in-Chief, is still presiding over two wars, in which, as the announcement was made, civilians may well have been dying as the result of his orders?
Is it really appropriate for the Nobel Peace Prize to be given to a man who would rather look forward than backwards when it comes to decisions, taken at the highest levels of the previous administration, to turn America from a country that upheld the universal torture ban into a country that sought to redefine torture so that it could torture "high-value detainees" in a network of secret prisons around the world?
Is it really appropriate for the Nobel Peace Prize to be given to a man who, although he ordered the closure of Guantanamo and recognizes that it "set back the moral authority" that, in his opinion, "is America's strongest currency in the world," and also that it "became a symbol that helped al-Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause," endorses indefinite detention without charge or trial for some of the 221 prisoners still held in the prison?
Is it really appropriate for the Nobel Peace Prize to be given to a man who, through the Justice Department, is appealing a ruling extending the habeas corpus rights granted by the Supreme Court to the prisoners at Guantanamo to foreign prisoners seized in other countries and "rendered" to the US prison at Bagram airbase -- where some of these men have been held for six years -- even though the judge ruled that "the detainees themselves as well as the rationale for detention are essentially the same"?
Is it really appropriate to give the Nobel Peace Prize to a man who, although he revoked some of the Bush administration's vilest executive orders and swore to uphold the universal torture ban, appears to be actively involved in the rendition of prisoners to the US prison at Bagram airbase?
Is it really appropriate for the Nobel Peace Prize to be given to a man who, although professing his admiration for the Geneva Conventions, has chosen to introduce Guantanamo-style reviews for the 600 or so Afghan prisoners held at Bagram, rather than the competent tribunals stipulated in Article 5 of the Geneva Conventions, and who, as a result, appears to be endorsing the Bush administration's unilateral rewriting of the Conventions?
In conclusion, although I realize that less deserving men have been given the Nobel Peace Prize in previous years -- Henry Kissinger, anyone? -- and although I reiterate that Barack Obama seems to be a nice guy, and that his election victory last November lifted a cloud of tyranny from the United States, I also have to note another ironic subtext to the award: that it will, sadly, serve only to inflame the rabid wing of the Republican party, which is predisposed to believe a Democratic President is soft on national security issues, and who would only have respect for the Nobel Committee if it introduced a Nobel War Prize and handed it to Dick Cheney.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Andy Worthington
Andy Worthington is a journalist and historian, based in London. He is the author of "The Guantanamo Files: The Stories of the 759 Detainees in America's Illegal Prison", the first book to tell the stories of all the detainees in America's illegal prison. For more information, visit his blog here.
Is it really appropriate for the Nobel Peace Prize -- granted "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" -- to be given to a man who, as Commander-in-Chief, is still presiding over two wars, in which, as the announcement was made, civilians may well have been dying as the result of his orders?
Is it really appropriate for the Nobel Peace Prize to be given to a man who would rather look forward than backwards when it comes to decisions, taken at the highest levels of the previous administration, to turn America from a country that upheld the universal torture ban into a country that sought to redefine torture so that it could torture "high-value detainees" in a network of secret prisons around the world?
Is it really appropriate for the Nobel Peace Prize to be given to a man who, although he ordered the closure of Guantanamo and recognizes that it "set back the moral authority" that, in his opinion, "is America's strongest currency in the world," and also that it "became a symbol that helped al-Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause," endorses indefinite detention without charge or trial for some of the 221 prisoners still held in the prison?
Is it really appropriate for the Nobel Peace Prize to be given to a man who, through the Justice Department, is appealing a ruling extending the habeas corpus rights granted by the Supreme Court to the prisoners at Guantanamo to foreign prisoners seized in other countries and "rendered" to the US prison at Bagram airbase -- where some of these men have been held for six years -- even though the judge ruled that "the detainees themselves as well as the rationale for detention are essentially the same"?
Is it really appropriate to give the Nobel Peace Prize to a man who, although he revoked some of the Bush administration's vilest executive orders and swore to uphold the universal torture ban, appears to be actively involved in the rendition of prisoners to the US prison at Bagram airbase?
Is it really appropriate for the Nobel Peace Prize to be given to a man who, although professing his admiration for the Geneva Conventions, has chosen to introduce Guantanamo-style reviews for the 600 or so Afghan prisoners held at Bagram, rather than the competent tribunals stipulated in Article 5 of the Geneva Conventions, and who, as a result, appears to be endorsing the Bush administration's unilateral rewriting of the Conventions?
In conclusion, although I realize that less deserving men have been given the Nobel Peace Prize in previous years -- Henry Kissinger, anyone? -- and although I reiterate that Barack Obama seems to be a nice guy, and that his election victory last November lifted a cloud of tyranny from the United States, I also have to note another ironic subtext to the award: that it will, sadly, serve only to inflame the rabid wing of the Republican party, which is predisposed to believe a Democratic President is soft on national security issues, and who would only have respect for the Nobel Committee if it introduced a Nobel War Prize and handed it to Dick Cheney.
Andy Worthington
Andy Worthington is a journalist and historian, based in London. He is the author of "The Guantanamo Files: The Stories of the 759 Detainees in America's Illegal Prison", the first book to tell the stories of all the detainees in America's illegal prison. For more information, visit his blog here.
Is it really appropriate for the Nobel Peace Prize -- granted "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" -- to be given to a man who, as Commander-in-Chief, is still presiding over two wars, in which, as the announcement was made, civilians may well have been dying as the result of his orders?
Is it really appropriate for the Nobel Peace Prize to be given to a man who would rather look forward than backwards when it comes to decisions, taken at the highest levels of the previous administration, to turn America from a country that upheld the universal torture ban into a country that sought to redefine torture so that it could torture "high-value detainees" in a network of secret prisons around the world?
Is it really appropriate for the Nobel Peace Prize to be given to a man who, although he ordered the closure of Guantanamo and recognizes that it "set back the moral authority" that, in his opinion, "is America's strongest currency in the world," and also that it "became a symbol that helped al-Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause," endorses indefinite detention without charge or trial for some of the 221 prisoners still held in the prison?
Is it really appropriate for the Nobel Peace Prize to be given to a man who, through the Justice Department, is appealing a ruling extending the habeas corpus rights granted by the Supreme Court to the prisoners at Guantanamo to foreign prisoners seized in other countries and "rendered" to the US prison at Bagram airbase -- where some of these men have been held for six years -- even though the judge ruled that "the detainees themselves as well as the rationale for detention are essentially the same"?
Is it really appropriate to give the Nobel Peace Prize to a man who, although he revoked some of the Bush administration's vilest executive orders and swore to uphold the universal torture ban, appears to be actively involved in the rendition of prisoners to the US prison at Bagram airbase?
Is it really appropriate for the Nobel Peace Prize to be given to a man who, although professing his admiration for the Geneva Conventions, has chosen to introduce Guantanamo-style reviews for the 600 or so Afghan prisoners held at Bagram, rather than the competent tribunals stipulated in Article 5 of the Geneva Conventions, and who, as a result, appears to be endorsing the Bush administration's unilateral rewriting of the Conventions?
In conclusion, although I realize that less deserving men have been given the Nobel Peace Prize in previous years -- Henry Kissinger, anyone? -- and although I reiterate that Barack Obama seems to be a nice guy, and that his election victory last November lifted a cloud of tyranny from the United States, I also have to note another ironic subtext to the award: that it will, sadly, serve only to inflame the rabid wing of the Republican party, which is predisposed to believe a Democratic President is soft on national security issues, and who would only have respect for the Nobel Committee if it introduced a Nobel War Prize and handed it to Dick Cheney.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.