Considering the reason why the prize exist at all was to help Nobel with his guilt over the invention of dynamite. Pretty much anyone can get the prize.
I think the Nobel Peace prize has lost a lot of merit over the years. It still finds a way to go to those who’re deserving. But then we have people like Obama, Kissinger, Yasser Arafat and the EU in 2012 that wound up with that has put a dent in its legitimacy and legacy.
Disagree about the EU. Europe has had sp many wars, and the EU managed to get the nations talking and trading. It has done lits for peace but its hard to measure wars that don’t happen.
I lost what little faith I had in the Nobel Peace Prize when Obama won it — and I liked Barack Obama, I voted for him both times, but I didn’t think “up and coming politician”/“first Black president” really qualified him, and the general feeling around the time was “well we hope he does good for peace in the world.” So… you give him a prize that is probably better suited to someone else, hoping he does what you want in the future?
Regarding Trump being a felon, I’m more concerned that we don’t let felons vote, but we’ll let a felon be president. Make that make sense.
NY didn’t let him vote, but florida did.
Once Trump learns that Obama got one, he’s going to want one too. I thought for a moment that he was going to get it for getting involved between North and South Korea, trying to unify them and take credit for all of it.
I remember he was president for like two weeks and then got the Nobel Peace Prize, I was a bit baffled
The Nobel prize itself was created to downplay atrocities for fame, so yes, you can get it no matter what.
It’s fulfilling it’s goal.
of course they can, Nelson Mandela won one, and he was famous for his time in prison
Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for opposing South Africa’s apartheid regime, which enforced racial segregation and discrimination.
Op asked “if someone who was a convicted felon/rapist could they be awarded the nobel peace prize?.”
These two are things are not the same, and just to make sure we’re both on the same page, they’re not the same because one of them went to prison as a form of protest against an unjust system. The other raped some people.
These two are things are not the same
I think you missed the point. Both were illegal at the time. Both led to convictions. Hell, hiding Jews in Germany was illegal during the holocaust. What is moral and what is legal don’t always align.
I think the point you might have missed is, a conviction shouldn’t exclude you from receiving a prize, because you may have been convicted by a corrupt court.
I’m not saying Trump was wrongly convicted, just that a conviction shouldn’t exclude you in and of itself.
A felon just means someone who broke the law, akaik. Law != morality.
Asking for a friend
If people like Obama and Kissinger can win a Nobel Peace Prize, the prize is meaningless.
Obama got it before the drone bombings. It was more of a hope kinda thing but the hope didn’t turn out that great. And really just indirectly led us to vaguely gesture around
They can and do take prizes off laureates if they go bad later.
Obama not fighting for his Supreme Court appointment is a lot more than indirectly responsible for all of this. He abdicated his duty to execute the office and fucked us all in doing so.
Ah, we’re to “blame Obama for this” instead of blaming the senators who outright refused to look at Supreme Court Justices for a year.
Lots of people share blame but Obama did not fight for it at all, which amounts to appeasement. There should have been a Supreme Court case about it.
Could he have done more than “encourage” RBG?
They can, yes. It is worth noting that some recipients were convicted for various “crimes” in their home countries, such as the Chinese human rights activist who won it in 2010.
Plus, five words: Henry Fucking War Criminal Kissinger. 1973.
Can someone please ELI5 the Kissinger hate? The only thing I know about the guy was from parodies of him in cartoons I saw growing up, and I always assumed he was like a Jewish Ghandi.
Edit: God damn. It feels like everyone back then really tried to ignore all this, when looking back through the lens of time and how media portrayed the man. Even Futurama showed him as a peaceful negotiator type somewhat divorced from the horrors of what was happening in the episode he was featured in (the one where Fry and Bender join the army for gum and get sent to fight balls). 😳
the one where Fry and Bender join the army for gum and get sent to fight balls
The Elders tell of a young ball much like you. She bounced three meters in the air. Then she bounced 1.8 meters in the air. Then she bounced four meters in the air. Do I make myself clear?
He was basically in charge of the Cambodian bombing campaign, calling out which targets were to be bombed without much of any intelligence indicating that it was a valid military target. Surprise: They were mostly civilian villages.
Also, he was closely tied to the Johnson administration, unofficialoy dealing with stuff pertaining to Vietnam. And suddenly he was offered a position in the Nixon administration right after. While not proven there are a lot of suspicious indicators that he may have intentionally botched the peace negotiations in Vietnam in an effort to give Johnson poor standing before the election so that Nixon could be the one ending the war. In other words; If true he intentionally prolonged the war in return for a position in the Nixon cabinet.
johnson straight up said what nixon was doing was treason.
then they used the same tricks in 79 to get reagan elected in 80.
then bush got helped into office by clarence thomas’ wife.
and apparently there aren’t consequences if you’re a republican, it’s like they can keep breaking the law every few years, what’s a bit of treason, pfft.
Similar to how Trump gave the go ahead for Putin to invade Ukraine if he lost the 2020 election, and how Republicans intentionally helped build up aid for Israel after they allowed Oct 7th to happen, so that Israel can carry out genocide. Then they could use that to say “see Democrats aren’t doing enough to help!”
I think it was Steve Bannon who has the tattoo of Nixon on his back. These are exactly the tactics that Trump and MAGAts are using the same play book against Americans
The back tattoo was Roger Stone. Although we’ve not heard much about him for a while, I promise he’s got his sticky little mitts in the administration currently. In some fashion.
Maybe closer to the nuke-wielding Gandhi from the Civilization games than the real one…
The views on him are mixed depending on exactly what lines you think can reasonably be crossed for the sake of protecting America’s interests.
In Kissinger’s tenure as Secretary of State, there were very few lines that he considered uncrossable - extending into tacit endorsement of actions that are accurately classed as war crimes.
The carpet-bombing of Cambodia, the peacetime kidnapping and murder of a Chilean general, actual military support for a genocide campaign in what is now Bangladesh - all this and more.
You’ve already received some good answers, but Rolling Stone had something to say about him when he finally stopped committing atrocities: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/henry-kissinger-war-criminal-dead-1234804748/
If there was a war crime that took place in the latter half of the 20th century he was basically involved in some way.
Not an expert, but I believe he is part of the reason the Vietnam war continued. Lots of people died because the US has to win. I think he also okayed the indiscriminate bombing they did. Also he’s a slimy politician.
Yes
It’s not very different from John bonomassa being named best guitarist by rolling stone
Who?
Exactly.
They’re supposed to not qualify for high office either so probably these days. Asking for a friend?
In the US at least, the constitutional requirements for being elected to the presidency do not prevent felons from being elected, and there are good arguments for this. A weaponized judicial system can be used to oust or prevent political opponents from gaining the presidency.
A weaponized judicial system can be used to oust or prevent political opponents from gaining the presidency.
Literally what the last 4 years were all about for the Democrats lol.
There is a lot to be said for the differences here.
Not really.
It’s almost a prerequisite now.
Funnily enough, he DOES qualify for a jail cell. 34 times actually.
If there were any justice in the world, it would be significantly higher than 34.
Can? Sure. Should? No.
It’s worthwhile remembering though that the people who get it aren’t all saints. Although rape and sexual assault are particularly distasteful items to have on the resume, if the person repented and then contributed meaningfully to lasting world peace, they shouldn’t automatically be stricken off the list.
So those admittedly distastefully liberal guidelines should exclude any current resident of the White House then.
I think they should ignore any person who is so publicly thirsty for it. It’s a prize you get, not one you ask for.
It’s unnerving having to read that the US ally Norway feels like they need to prepare for retaliatory tariff action if the independent committee for the award, that only ended up in Oslo by a quirk of Scandinavian history, doesn’t award the prize to 47. Sad.
It’s the reason a felon can take office in the government. Otherwise, it would be easy to “convict” someone you considered a threat.
There are no qualifiers for the person being nominated. As long as someone who qualifies as a nominator nominates them. The nominator will not be revealed until at least 50 years have passed.
Many past peace price winners were leaders in armed conflicts, and war is dirty business. So I assume the rules on crimes aren’t that strict.
