Opinion: deserve

Thứ Sáu, 10 tháng 2, 2012

Wikileaks: Does Bradley Manning deserve a Nobel Peace Prize?

Icelandic lawmakers nominate the accused secret spiller — reigniting a debate over whether Manning aided the world, or aided the enemy

Three members of the Icelandic parliament have nominated accused WikiLeaks informant Army Pfc. Bradley Manning for the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize. Manning allegedly put 250,000 Department of State diplomatic cables, Department of Defense gun camera videos, and other classified documents onto CD-RWs, and sent them to WikiLeaks, which posted them online for all to see. The Icelandic politicians say Manning, who is being court-martialed for aiding the enemy, did the world a favor by exposing America's "long history of corruption, war crimes, and imperialism." Does Manning really deserve a medal?

Manning deserves this award: "Bradley Manning is a hero," not a criminal, says Brian Sonenstein at Salem-News.com. If he really did leak these documents, which helped catalyze the Arab Spring by exposing "official corruption and brutality in countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria," then there are truly "few individuals who have made as great a contribution to justice and peace." And because of his "unjust treatment," there are "even fewer who have had to pay for it the way he has."
"Tell the Nobel Committee: Award Bradley Manning the 2012 Peace Prize"

Manning's boosters are ignoring the facts: The Icelandic lawmakers's choice "shows a deep ignorance of what Manning stands accused of," says Ron Capps at TIME. Manning's alleged leaks "put the lives of American service members, diplomats, and citizens at greater risk." The Nobel Peace Prize is meant for someone who fosters "fraternity between nations" — not "betraying an oath and putting the lives of your countrymen and their sources in grave danger."
"The Nobel betrayal prize"

The irony is just too much: The Nobel Peace Prize already has "a rotting fish reputation" thanks to its often-dubious nominations, says Jazz Shaw at Hot Air. Manning's nod makes the stench unbearable. Manning supposedly deserves the prize because he exposed "war crimes" in Iraq and has endured heroic suffering behind bars. But his backers fail to mention that the 2009 Nobel winner, President Obama, is the one ultimately responsible for Manning's ostensibly "horrible treatment." The prize is now officially a joke.
"Super. Bradley Manning for the (wait for it...) Nobel Peace Prize"

SEE MORE: WikiLeaks: Will a 'gay soldier' defense help Bradley Manning?

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Did CNN's Roland Martin deserve a suspension for 'homophobic' tweeting?

CNN yanks an in-house political analyst off the air, but some argue that the punishment doesn't fit the tweet

CNN prides itself on reporting breaking news as quickly as possible, says Erik Wemple at The Washington Post. But "it's apparently a little slower in responding to in-house crises." CNN political analyst Roland Martin sent out "unequivocally homophobic tweets" during Sunday's Super Bowl, but CNN didn't suspend him until Wednesday. One tweet in particular — "If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham's H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him!" — provoked the ire of gay rights groups. Martin apologized, claiming he was mocking soccer players, not gay men. Yeah, right, scoffs Joe Coscarelli at New York. "CNN didn't buy it, either." Is suspending Martin indefinitely the right response?

CNN should fire Martin: Urging violence against anyone is "serious and ugly stuff," and it's even worse when aimed at an embattled group like gays and lesbians, says David Zurawik at the Baltimore Sun. I suspect Martin's employer agrees, and "I will be shocked to ever see him on CNN again." A network that strives to be more "journalistically responsible" than its cable news peers can't afford to keep "a political analyst with such poor judgment and lack of sensitivity."
"Roland Martin"

Are you kidding? CNN is overreacting: Violence against gays and lesbians is a real problem, says Rita Solomon at PolicyMic, but "the overly sensitive reaction... to this tweet is not doing victimized LGBT youth any favors." Declaring war over a journalist's "ambiguous informal tweet" just encourages "paranoia," and takes the focus away from more serious homophobia and anti-gay hate crimes. "Martin's tasteless joke, along with his apology, should be dismissed as irrelevant, and forgotten."
"Martin's Super Bowl tweet... should not matter to the LGBT community"

If only CNN were more consistent: "Don't cry for Roland," says Michael Arceneaux at The Grio. Words have consequences, and "a political commentator ought to know better than anyone how quickly an off-the-cuff remark can be your undoing." At the same time, CNN seems to be employing a "double standard." What about conservative pundits Erick Erickson and Dana Loesch, "who has boasted about being thrilled over Occupy protesters getting struck by Tasers or [U.S. military men] urinating on dead Taliban soldiers"? That's arguably just as bad as Martin's tweet.
"CNN had no choice but to suspend Roland Martin"

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week