Obama awarded 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

[Chucke]

I strongly disagree! Perhaps you can refreshen our recollection of the meaning and purpose of the award.



I do not see any reason he should have rejected it, politely or not.

Gladly.

When Alfred Nobel died on December 10, 1896, it was discovered that he had left a will, dated November 27, 1895, according to which most of his vast wealth was to be used for five prizes, including one for peace. The prize for peace was to be awarded 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 of peace congresses." The prize was to be awarded "by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting."

If you put an OR in the place of the AND you could make a very weak case for Obama ATTEMPTING TO CREATE fraternity between nations. Any perceived "fraternity" Obama had created after a couple of weeks in the White House has certainly not been tested yet. Some would argue that Obama has done more to polarize his OWN country than any other president to date.

Even if he has created fraternity (which I'm not conceding he actually has) - that work has been COMPLETELY offset by his ADDITION to standing armies.

And even with a poor, twisted translation (that omits the majority of the stated purpose of the prize) you'd be hard pressed to make the case that Obama did the MOST or BEST work (among his contemporaries) toward the effort of creating fraternity between nations.

If you take the stated purpose of the NPP as a whole - and honestly, objectively examine it - you see how utterly absurd this nomination is. Obama fan or not.

[EMT803]

Chuck........Strategicmove.... ...I think that YOU guys should be polititians. I'm glad to see two people here disagree respectfully and not resort to insults and other forms of immaturity. Both of you guys have very good points and the great part is.........thats your right as Americans (for now at least )! Good work and valid points.

[DAdams91982]

I strongly disagree! Perhaps you can refreshen our recollection of the meaning and purpose of the award.



I do not see any reason he should have rejected it, politely or not.

Well I can name a few reasons. Firstly is Article 1, section 9 stating that any foreign gift will not be accepted without first having full consent of the US congress... which has not happened. Also the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act of 1966 and further legislation passed in 1977 has a big hand in denying this gift from being received. So as people are fawning over President Obama and honeymooning on his rhetoric, he is in clear violation of the law.

[strategicmove]

Gladly.

When Alfred Nobel died on December 10, 1896, it was discovered that he had left a will, dated November 27, 1895, according to which most of his vast wealth was to be used for five prizes, including one for peace. The prize for peace was to be awarded 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 of peace congresses." The prize was to be awarded "by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting."

If you put an OR in the place of the AND you could make a very weak case for Obama ATTEMPTING TO CREATE fraternity between nations. Any perceived "fraternity" Obama had created after a couple of weeks in the White House has certainly not been tested yet. Some would argue that Obama has done more to polarize his OWN country than any other president to date.

Even if he has created fraternity (which I'm not conceding he actually has) - that work has been COMPLETELY offset by his ADDITION to standing armies.

And even with a poor, twisted translation (that omits the majority of the stated purpose of the prize) you'd be hard pressed to make the case that Obama did the MOST or BEST work (among his contemporaries) toward the effort of creating fraternity between nations.

If you take the stated purpose of the NPP as a whole - and honestly, objectively examine it - you see how utterly absurd this nomination is. Obama fan or not.

Thank you for your post. If you take a look at one of my earlier posts, I mentioned the improvement of fraternity among nations, and the holding of peace congresses, so there is no dispute here. You may agree with me that these conditions set by Mr. Nobel are reinterpreted every time by the Nobel Committee. Those conditions made sense at the time Mr. Nobel lived, but cannot be applied one-to-one these days. How many of the recent Nobel Peace Prize winners had solid achievements in terms of the "best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and [/or] for the holding of peace congresses."? Not many! My point is that these conditions must be given a modern rendition to lend them to practical implementation.

Now, to Mr. Obama. Is his commitment to diplomacy in doubt? He has proposed unconditional holding of talks with Iran over its nuclear programme (without a pre-condition to drop its uranium enrichment). Some may regard this as a demonstration of weakness, but game-theoretic principles show otherwise. Confrontational approaches of earlier periods did not generate much benefit for anyone other than Iran.
Still on international diplomacy, Mr. Obama has offered North Korea an opportunity for bilateral talks. Furthermore, he is appears to have created favourable conditions for the goal of reducing Russian and American nuclear arsenals, principally by masterly working at defrosting relations with Russia (which, by the way, became very rusty toward the end of the Bush administration). He is also committed to a prompt withdrawal of US forces in Iraq. The list goes on. As a consequence, I believe it is safe to say Mr. Obama has been pivotal in positively changing the global tone of foreign policy. While this is still in the early stages, it is nevertheless promising.

If you disagree that Mr. Obama, even under what you termed a "twisted translation", "did the MOST or BEST work (among his contemporaries) toward the effort of creating fraternity between nations", to use your words, then tell me which of his contemporaries did more!

All together, I do not think this award is absurd. Again, look at an earlier post I made here. The Prize may be awarded to spur a direction, motivate action in a certain area, or to underline a certain way of thinking. I admit the timing of the award caught most observers off-guard, but that is not to challenge the integrity of the award. Remember, no matter who gets the award, there is always a better choice, depending on whom you ask.

[strategicmove]

Well I can name a few reasons. Firstly is Article 1, section 9 stating that any foreign gift will not be accepted without first having full consent of the US congress... which has not happened. Also the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act of 1966 and further legislation passed in 1977 has a big hand in denying this gift from being received. So as people are fawning over President Obama and honeymooning on his rhetoric, he is in clear violation of the law.

Well, technically, assuming this award can be described as a gift, the award ceremonies are due early December 2009, so he has not accepted anything yet, and so has not violated any law yet! Furthermore, it is arguable whether he was awarded the prize as the President of the United States, considering the nominations ended February 1, 2009, as Senator of Illinois, or as citizen Obama. We may never know this precisely. So, depending on what status is relevant, the law you invoked may or may not apply. Something else: The laws you quoted were not in effect when Presidents Theodore Roosevelt (1906) and Woodrow Wilson (1919) received the Peace Prizes, otherwise it would have been interesting to know what protocol was followed in those cases.

[strategicmove]

...Well firstly I will answer that by the fact that the president with approval of congress and the supreme court ( hence reason for sotomoyor nominee) can alter the whole process of election of president, senate, and house, amend the bill of rights to fit there own agenda as well as the declaration on independence and also interpret it as they seem fit( sotomoyor seems to envogue the thought of rewritting laws...

The important question is "What are the chances of such outcomes"? As for Judge Sotomayor, you know enough about the workings of the Supreme Court to assess how plausible your position is! I'll leave it at that!

Read all the news press my friend other than nbc, cbs, they have been dicussing the topic of obama and his lil helpers wanting to amend and nulify parts of the bill of rights and they are criticizing the declaration...

I do not even read the news organizations you mentioned. The entire idea is laughable, to say the least.

So yea I would say that the idea or thought of obama wanting to be dictator is not a joke but reality in a socialist driven agenda....

I smile when this term "socialist" is tossed around with reckless abandon. Have you seen a "socialist" economy in action? I doubt it, otherwise you should know that the US is eons away from such a politico-economic structure. Find a different term!

And as his first dictator stragety...congress will vote on a healthcare bill that is not written yet, but when it is pass the bill will be wrote and he will tell us what it says so we need not read it ourselves, so he will have the only copy.( Thats dictator 101 overseas, but since its obama its ok.)

What?

I cannot give an alternative for the stabalizing of the economy...

I thought as much.

... except for no more political repayment stimulus bills.

What exactly does this mean?

I would prefer a stimulus that redistributes the wealth to the tax paying legal citizens , not the welfare leaches that always seem to get more. ( but I guess living for free does get hard in a depression.. yeah right.)...

Be more concrete! How should that happen in practice? Everyone pretends to have a better prescription than President Obama, so please spell out exactly how you would tackle the issue!

And if you wana point the finger at bush then point it back at clinton also for the decline of the dollar. the drastic decline has taken place in obamas term under his policies and spending....

I cannot believe I am reading this! President Clinton? Take a break, and take a look at the determinants of exchange-rate fluctuations!

Why cant our leader take responsibility for once. Did bush blame clinton when 9/11 happened a month after his start, no of course not it was all his fault, he did that in a month, but how is it obama hasnt done anything himslef in 10 months that has negatively affected us...because he wont take blame its bushes fault. Im sure when air force one breaks down it will be bushes fault too. not obamas for running around the globe with the first unlady on our tax money...

Are you kidding?

... Well just ask the prime minister of great brittain, ask china what they think, and listen to some things chavez from venezuale says. Just google them all. But of course all the muslim leaders love him....well except iran. but all my leaders must not have an accountable opinion, so I wont mention russia either.

You would be better off, if you formulated your opinions yourself, and not believe everything you hear on radio. Great Britain? China? Russia? Chavez (nicer to Obama than Bush, but arguably anti-American, anyway)?
If all Muslim leaders love him, according to you, then it is contrary to your original position that world leaders consider him a "joke". Did you listen to (or read) his speech in Egypt earlier this year?

...He is not rying to crumble it, bu thats what he is gona do....

But he also has stated many times that we must start over to rebuild...so that sounds to fit the bill. Plus if we fall then we will have to go to him to get us out and re-elect him because only the sourcerer can undo his curse,he wants world peace but that will never happen because of a little thing called religeon. religeon is what has divided many nations, leaders and the world. So peace is only a dream because religeous beliefs are stronger then individual will, governement and the law( in other countries) But obama will jist have wright convert us all to muslim and outlaw any other religeon punishable by death. Then with a world of muslin, we will have peace....

I just do not follow your logic here!

Just google all your questions and look at the array of supporting info. Just dont get obama to wage war against me for telling the truth. like he has with the healthcare companies.

You got all these from Google?

[Iron Lungz]

You got all these from Google?

Sadly, most get their information from Google.

Strategic (Dr. Strategic - as most do not know), I enjoy your contributions on the subject.

[RenegadeRows]

This is all I will say: It's called Propaganda. Our enemies (which I know very well) would do and say anything to have the masses turn against our own leader. Now, regardless if you like the man, or if you disagree with his policies/propositions, NO leader can be effective if his own people are pointing fingers at him and listening to the enemies ideology of him. Stop playing in to their (terrorist) hands.

/I'm out.

Nicely said, Fin.

[DAdams91982]

Well, technically, assuming this award can be described as a gift, the award ceremonies are due early December 2009, so he has not accepted anything yet, and so has not violated any law yet! Furthermore, it is arguable whether he was awarded the prize as the President of the United States, considering the nominations ended February 1, 2009, as Senator of Illinois, or as citizen Obama. We may never know this precisely. So, depending on what status is relevant, the law you invoked may or may not apply. Something else: The laws you quoted were not in effect when Presidents Theodore Roosevelt (1906) and Woodrow Wilson (1919) received the Peace Prizes, otherwise it would have been interesting to know what protocol was followed in those cases.

It doesnt matter if he is being awarded as Senator, Citizen or President. He is and will be a sitting president when the award is confirmed and disbursed, and he was put in for said award after his presidency commenced. But I agree with you that it will be interesting to see how it plays out, since the majority of congress will not bat an eyelash because of who is the sitting president.

[DAdams91982]

Sadly, most get their information from Google.

Strategic (Dr. Strategic - as most do not know), I enjoy your contributions on the subject.

I must ask IL... where is it you gain a predominant amount of your information?

[strategicmove]

It doesnt matter if he is being awarded as Senator, Citizen or President.

I think it does, in a technical sense. Clearly, I am speculating here, but I have the feeling you are, too.

He is and will be a sitting president when the award is confirmed and disbursed

I believe this is only relevant, if he will receive the award in his capacity as the President of the United States, and not as a citizen. Again, a technicality.

...
and he was put in for said award after his presidency commenced.

Now, this is pure speculation, and you know it. The nominations ended February 1, 2009. We have no way of knowing when the last nomination for Mr. Obama reached the Nobel Committee. October 2008? November 2008? December 2008? January 2009? We simply do not know, and may not know for another 50 years.

But I agree with you that it will be interesting to see how it plays out, since the majority of congress will not bat an eyelash because of who is the sitting president.

If they bat an eyelash, as you put it, it might be because the technicalities are not as clear cut as some think.

[strategicmove]

I must ask IL... where is it you gain a predominant amount of your information?

For me, it's AnabolicMinds.

[Iron Lungz]

Information is everywhere; school library; POST library; and if it is about anything in regards to the Military - usually first hand.
Why?

I must ask IL... where is it you gain a predominant amount of your information?

[DAdams91982]

Information is everywhere; school library; POST library; and if it is about anything in regards to the Military - usually first hand.
Why?

You said sadly most people gain their info from Google. Which sounded like their knowledge is less than. When books are years out of date and most studies are not published in paper form... it seemed somewhat condescending.

[DAdams91982]

I think it does, in a technical sense. Clearly, I am speculating here, but I have the feeling you are, too.


I believe this is only relevant, if he will receive the award in his capacity as the President of the United States, and not as a citizen. Again, a technicality.



Now, this is pure speculation, and you know it. The nominations ended February 1, 2009. We have no way of knowing when the last nomination for Mr. Obama reached the Nobel Committee. October 2008? November 2008? December 2008? January 2009? We simply do not know, and may not know for another 50 years.


If they bat an eyelash, as you put it, it might be because the technicalities are not as clear cut as some think.

Read the article and law... the President cannot take a gift at ANYTIME during his presidency from a foreign affair... even if it was for his capacity as a citizen. There is no speculation here, it is looked upon as a bribe. The gift become part of the state and he can purchase it back at market value if he wishes.

[strategicmove]

Read the article and law... the President cannot take a gift at ANYTIME during his presidency from a foreign affair... even if it was for his capacity as a citizen. There is no speculation here, it is looked upon as a bribe. The gift become part of the state and he can purchase it back at market value if he wishes.

Usually, the entire idea of such laws is to avoid the possibility of conflict of interest. Many companies also have something similar. Even if we regard this award as a gift, the awarding Committee is not a lobbying institution, and does not seek to influence the political or economic course of any particular country for the benefit of its home government. In any case, I'll be interested to see how this unfolds, but I highly doubt there will be any drama associated with receiving the award.

[Iron Lungz]

Negative. When someone gains knowledge from Wiki, or other user-edited resource sites, that is what I am referring to. Also, the digital library that I use is as up-to-data as the day is now. Luckily, I still can use those resources from West Point, as well as the other University's that I've attended/attend. Condescending? No. But thanks for asking.

You said sadly most people gain their info from Google. Which sounded like their knowledge is less than. When books are years out of date and most studies are not published in paper form... it seemed somewhat condescending.

[DAdams91982]

Negative. When someone gains knowledge from Wiki, or other user-edited resource sites, that is what I am referring to. Also, the digital library that I use is as up-to-data as the day is now. Luckily, I still can use those resources from West Point, as well as the other University's that I've attended/attend. Condescending? No. But thanks for asking.

Okay, then we can agree your comment on Google was wrong.

[DAdams91982]

Usually, the entire idea of such laws is to avoid the possibility of conflict of interest. Many companies also have something similar. Even if we regard this award as a gift, the awarding Committee is not a lobbying institution, and does not seek to influence the political or economic course of any particular country for the benefit of its home government. In any case, I'll be interested to see how this unfolds, but I highly doubt there will be any drama associated with receiving the award.

I agree it will be interesting to see how it plays out... see if our elected leaders will have the balls to actually enforce a law they penned.

[Mulletsoldier]

Well I can name a few reasons. Firstly is Article 1, section 9 stating that any foreign gift will not be accepted without first having full consent of the US congress... which has not happened. Also the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act of 1966 and further legislation passed in 1977 has a big hand in denying this gift from being received. So as people are fawning over President Obama and honeymooning on his rhetoric, he is in clear violation of the law.

Just for clarity of the conversation, Art. 1, Sec.9 - the so-called, "Emolument Clause" - prohibits, primarily, the accepting of titles, emoluments, and "gifts" from any "king, prince, or foreign state". Or, more broadly, foreign entities which may be regarded as states and/or state apparatuses. As well, § 7342 (the FDGA) prohibits the tendering of "gifts" and/or "decorations" from the following sources:

(2) “foreign government” means—

(A) any unit of foreign governmental authority, including any foreign national, State, local, and municipal government;
(B) any international or multinational organization whose membership is composed of any unit of foreign government described in subparagraph (A); and
(C) any agent or representative of any such unit or such organization, while acting as such;

As such, it is a difficult argument to characterize the Nobel Prize Committee by this particular rubric. However, in the case one makes that argument, the definitions set out in (c)(1)(A)(B) render it possible to accept the Nobel Prize:

(c)

(1) The Congress consents to—
(A) the accepting and retaining by an employee of a gift of minimal value tendered and received as a souvenir or mark of courtesy; and
(B) the accepting by an employee of a gift of more than minimal value when such gift is in the nature of an educational scholarship or medical treatment or when it appears that to refuse the gift would likely cause offense or embarrassment or otherwise adversely affect the foreign relations of the United States, except that—

Now, without superfluously defining what "gift" and "minimum value" denote in the FDGA, I feel confident in saying that the acceptance of the Nobel Prize does not fall beyond the parameters of either Article 9, or the FDGA.

The issue of whether or not Obama is meritorious in this instance notwithstanding, it would certainly be legal to accept the award; and, as far as I know, the amendments to the FDGA in 1977, 1978, 1986, 2002, 2004 and 2006 do not alter the legality of his (potential) acceptance.

Personally, and making my decision based upon even modern renditions of the Prize Committee's criterion, I do not think he deserves this award per se; however, speaking strictly from the standpoint of culpability, he is doing nothing "illegal" by accepting the gift.