I was very negative about Obama being given the Nobel Peace Prize as those who were around me will recall quite readily (I was not one for his presidency either but that is a different matter). My objection was that I was of the opinion that the award should be given to someone who had actually fought for peace somewhere. The award committee seemed to be seeking an agreement for the future - a hopeful wish. I joked that next they would give it to class 6-9 of Baruch Junior High School.
Now we have yet another interesting scenario: a democratic president openly acknowledges targeted assassination. Now, this is just odd, no? Should democratic leaders not try to hide such things? Is there going to be a political payoff for Obama eliminating Osama? Does this act not completely destroy the idea of the Democratic Peace in social science? No, Osama was not a citizen of the US and he may have participated in violent action against the US but should the US start (or should I say) continue to execute political challengers? Did American citizens demand Osama's head (as brilliantly depicted in Ted Rall's cartoon)? Did we vote on execution and retribution? How long does a targeted assassination bolster a political leader?
Sorry for more questions than answers but I'm a little confused at the moment, I thought democracies only engaged in hidden violent operations abroad. Lie to me! Hide something. Put the relevant information in an India Jones-like vault somewhere. At least that way I have to search out the information and wonder if we could be so vicious. Don't parade the assassination in front of me and expect me to cheer, vote, celebrate. What would Woodward, Bernstein and the rest of the country have done if Nixon just told them everything that he was doing to undermine American rights? Are we thought so little of that politicians just need to give us their evil doings in a press briefing and on late night, just to make sure that we don't miss anything?
My real question concerns the Nobel Prize committee and the American public. Regarding the first, does authorizing a targeted assassination (let alone continuing/extending a war) automatically disqualify someone from the Nobel Peace Prize? Can they take it back? That act might make more sense then them granting it in the first place. Regarding the second, did the US population really want someone killed without trial? No one seems to get executed on Law and Order before they go to court and when that happens the police officer responsible doesn't come back on the show. I just want real life to be as good as television.
Now we have yet another interesting scenario: a democratic president openly acknowledges targeted assassination. Now, this is just odd, no? Should democratic leaders not try to hide such things? Is there going to be a political payoff for Obama eliminating Osama? Does this act not completely destroy the idea of the Democratic Peace in social science? No, Osama was not a citizen of the US and he may have participated in violent action against the US but should the US start (or should I say) continue to execute political challengers? Did American citizens demand Osama's head (as brilliantly depicted in Ted Rall's cartoon)? Did we vote on execution and retribution? How long does a targeted assassination bolster a political leader?
Sorry for more questions than answers but I'm a little confused at the moment, I thought democracies only engaged in hidden violent operations abroad. Lie to me! Hide something. Put the relevant information in an India Jones-like vault somewhere. At least that way I have to search out the information and wonder if we could be so vicious. Don't parade the assassination in front of me and expect me to cheer, vote, celebrate. What would Woodward, Bernstein and the rest of the country have done if Nixon just told them everything that he was doing to undermine American rights? Are we thought so little of that politicians just need to give us their evil doings in a press briefing and on late night, just to make sure that we don't miss anything?
My real question concerns the Nobel Prize committee and the American public. Regarding the first, does authorizing a targeted assassination (let alone continuing/extending a war) automatically disqualify someone from the Nobel Peace Prize? Can they take it back? That act might make more sense then them granting it in the first place. Regarding the second, did the US population really want someone killed without trial? No one seems to get executed on Law and Order before they go to court and when that happens the police officer responsible doesn't come back on the show. I just want real life to be as good as television.
RSS Feed
