It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: SilverStarGazer
originally posted by: DaRAGE
a reply to: myselfaswell
He shouldn't have accepted it to begin with. What a joke.
I was listening to Radio Sweden during the time they were announcing the winners for the other various disciplines just a couple weeks ago and they mentioned that a person cannot refuse the honor but didn't really elaborate on what that actually means.
originally posted by: badgerprints
She said,"Everything is going to be OK now. He's going to fix everything."
I really looked at her. She was kinda dazed. She looked like she'd just seen the second coming, almost beatific.
I realized that she really didn't care what I said, just that I was as happy as she was.
She actually thought this guy was going to save the world.
Nobel prizes cannot be returned, nor can they be rescinded; it is simply not possible to be stripped of a prize after it is awarded.
But Alfred Nobel himself, perhaps fittingly for the inventor of dynamite, did not specify that peace was a prerequisite for receiving the prize. In his will, he said that the prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
regardless of a Nobel laureate's feelings about the prize, the committee still records them as the winner. "The fact that he has declined this distinction does not in the least modify the validity of the award," the awarding panel noted rather tersely when Sartre tried to turn it down. In the end, he was never presented the award, but remains listed as its winner.
"It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve," said Thorbjoern Jagland, the head of the committee explained, when asked why Obama had been chosen. He was hinting that aspiration, and not achievement, had swayed the judges' decision. Had Obama refused the prize, he would have been snubbing supporters of the very agenda he has committed himself to pushing, and to some extent, rejecting the values for which he was being rewarded. Deserved or not, his acceptance of the award was almost inevitable. Turning down a Nobel prize is even more difficult than winning one - just ask Jean-Paul Sartre, Nobel Prize Winner, 1964.
Thorbjorn Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, said today that President Obama “really ought to consider” returning his Nobel Peace Prize Medal immediately, including the “really nice” case it came in.
Jagland, flanked by the other four members of the Committee, said they’d never before asked for the return of a Peace Prize, “even from a damnable war-criminal like Kissinger,” but that the 10% drawdown in US troops in Afghanistan the President announced last week capped a period of “non-Peace-Prize-winner-type behavior” in 2011. “Guantanamo’s still open. There's bombing Libya. There's blowing bin Laden away rather than putting him on trial. Now a few US troops go home, but the US will be occupying Afghanistan until 2014 and beyond. Don’t even get me started on Yemen!”
The Committee awarded Obama the coveted prize in 2009 after he made a series of speeches in the first months of his presidency, which convinced the Peace Prize Committee that he was: “creating a new climate of...multilateral diplomacy...an emphasis on the role of the United Nations...of dialogue and negotiations as instruments for resolving international conflicts...and a vision of world free of nuclear arms.”
“Boy oh boy!” added Jagland. “Did we regret that press release!”