Should Obama's Nobel Peace Prize be revoked?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aicy

Aicy

Strategos
Obama now supports detention without charge, as shown by his recent signing of a bill that allows such to happen. Basically, it allows someone to be detained indefinatley and even tourtoured if they are titled a "terrorist". The specification for this title is very vague and allows for anyone to be titled this without any evidence or judge or jury.

In the first place Obama didn't deserve the Peace Prize anyway, and got it for what he said he planned to do, which he hasn't done and instead has allowed inhumane things such as torture to continue under his own government.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`\

Even being a neo-con myself, I need you to show me where in the law and in what law it says that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser4013

Guest
Aicy is referring to the National Defence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, and I believe it is sections 1031, 1032 which are the controversial sections.

s.1031 deals with Indefinite Detention;
s.1032 deals with Military Custody; also
s.1032 has been revised regarding military custody of US citizens.

If I may put this out there:
The Supreme Court in the case of Ex Parte Milligan 71 US 2 (1866), the Chase Court held that trials of civilians by presidentially created military commissions are unconstitutional. Martial law cannot exist where the civil courts are operating.

Also more recently in the case of Munaf v Geren 553 US 2008, the Roberts Court held that the habeas corpus statute extends to American citizens held overseas by American forces operating subject to an American chain of command even if part of a larger multinational force. The Court pointed specifically to the statute's application to individuals held in custody "under color of the authority of the United States" to hold that actual Government custody is sufficient for jurisdiction in federal courts.

The case cites USC §2241(c)(1) - the Habeus Statute -
applies to persons held “in custody under or by
color of the authority of the United States.” The disjunctive “or” in
§2241(c)(1) makes clear that actual Government custody suffices for
jurisdiction, even if that custody could be viewed as “under . . . color
of” another authority, such as the MNF–I.
Click to expand...

This case also distinguished the Hirota v MacArthur 338 US 197 (1948) because that dealt with non-US citizens.

I would also refer you to the case of Hamdi v Rumsfeld 542 US 507 (2004) where the Rehnquist Court also held that although Congress authorized Hamdi's detention, Fifth Amendment due process guarantees give a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant the right to contest that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. The plurality rejected the government's argument that the separation-of-powers prevents the judiciary from hearing Hamdi's challenge. Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, concurred with the plurality that Hamdi had the right to challenge in court his status as an enemy combatant.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Tyrion said:
Aicy is referring to the National Defence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, and I believe it is sections 1021, 1022 and 1032 which are the controversial sections.
Click to expand...

I think you got the sections wrong ;)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
If they are titled terrorist in the first place then they already have proof.
 
Aicy

Aicy

Strategos
No they don't.

You could be labelled as a terrorist tommorow and then torture you if they really wanted to.

All under the pretense that you could be a terrorist.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Obama got the peace prize for what he did during his first couple weeks of presidency I believe, not for what he promised to do. - Source

That's not to say Obama deserved the Peace Prize. Imo, they should have waited until they saw how the rest of his presidency turned out before even giving him the nomination.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
"I do not agree with everything in it" - Obama.

Presidents take risks.

Guys before you go on saying things about all the bad things he did, he didn't do most of them.

Sure he has power, but not all of it.

Minor power actually compared to groups like the Republicans.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser4013

Guest
With regards to his receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, I really feel that the award was rather premature. Looking over a list of previous Nobel Peace Laureates, the list is full of many people who are deserving of the award. Kofi Annan for all of his work as Sec. General of the UN; President Kim Dae-Jung of South Korea for his Sunshine Policy with North Korea; Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin for the Oslo Peace Accords; Former President Jimmy Carter for his contribution to bringing about the Oslo Peace Accords; Shirin Ebadi who is a woman's rights activist in Iran; Nelson Mandela for obvious reasons; Aung San Suu Kyi as well for her political activism agains the military junta of Burma; the Dalai Lama; Elie Wiesel; and let's not forget Martin Luther King, Jr.

I applaud the fact that Obama is America's first black president. Heck, I even voted for him. However, there was little that he did in his first 100 days as President that were remotely deserving of the most coveted prize any person could hope to attain. His award was for 'his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples'

According to a release by the Nobel Prize Committee, President Obama was given this award for three reasons as Nobel's will stated that it should be for actions in the previous year, so for 2008:
1. Building fraternity among nations: He wasn't President at all during 2008, he became President-Elect on November 6th of that year, but was not able to do anything with regards to international policy because he was not yet the Chief Executive.
2. Reduction of standing arms: The Committee feels that his vision about a nuclear free world was sufficient for this criterion. If that's the case, the award can be given to just about every child in the world for this.
3. The holding of peace conferences: When was he able to do this in 2008? Even if he held high level meetings with diplomats, he had no way to enforce anything or even create a treaty.

If you wish to view the release by Geir Lundestad, you can view it here.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
spartinpastic said:
"I do not agree with everything in it" - Obama.

Presidents take risks.

Guys before you go on saying things about all the bad things he did, he didn't do most of them.

Sure he has power, but not all of it.

Minor power actually compared to groups like the Republicans.
Click to expand...

That's not a risk at all really :D More of a "Guess this is the best I'm gonna get" kind of thing. He believed that this bill was a valid compromise between the two sides of the argument.

"He didn't do most of them", he could have EASILY prevented them :D

You're delusional if you think he has "minor power". He can stop any bill from passing without any challenge.

I'm not one to insult President Obama's job, he inherited a crumbling economy from his predecessors and there's not much he can do about it but what you're suggesting is just absurd.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
To be honest I get your point

Some guy could be like "HE STEPPED ON THE PRESIDENTS CRACKER HE IS A TERRROIST!!!!".

Then he gets tortured, yeah nevermind.

I don't like the bill now, but I kinda get why it should be passed. I'm with only bits and pieces, like Obama may be.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
spartinpastic said:
To be honest I get your point

Some guy could be like "HE STEPPED ON THE PRESIDENTS CRACKER HE IS A TERRROIST!!!!".

Then he gets tortured, yeah nevermind.

I don't like the bill now, but I kinda get why it should be passed. I'm with only bits and pieces, like Obama may be.
Click to expand...

Since the whole idea of democracy is based on limitation of government's power, it is completely unjust to pass bills like this one or SOPA. This bill gives the government power to torture literally anyone that is not a U.S. citizen without trial just as SOPA gives the government power to shut down any website without trial.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Simple answer: You cannot revoke a nobel peace prize, it cannot be stripped from a recipient.


This is a propaganda argument
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top