Manning/Richards: A Tale of Two Courts Marital

"There have been multiple instances in which Wikileaks has been dangerously reckless. After being criticized for releasing the social security numbers of U.S. soldiers, Assange told the New Yorker that this was acceptable “collateral damage, and acknowledged that despite Wikileaks’ “harm-minimization policy” there may be “blood on our hands.” 

Other leaks were far more dangerous; they included technical details of a device designed to disarm roadside explosives (IEDs) in Iraq and Afghanistan. An even more disturbing leak included the names of Afghan informants who gave U.S. or Afghan forces information about the Taliban, and a Taliban spokesman acknowledged that it had used these cables to hunt people down. "

Pre-2003 Version of U.S. Soldier's Creed

(Introduced in the wake of the My Lai Massacre)

I am an American Soldier.

I am a member of the United States Army – a protector of the greatest nation on earth.

Because I am proud of the uniform I wear, I will always act in ways creditable to the military service and the nation it is sworn to guard.

I am proud of my own organization. I will do all I can to make it the finest unit in the Army.

I will be loyal to those under whom I serve. I will do my full part to carry out orders and instructions given to me or my unit.

As a soldier, I realize that I am a member of a time-honored profession—that I am doing my share to keep alive the principles of freedom for which my country stands.

No matter what the situation I am in, I will never do anything, for pleasure, profit, or personal safety, which will disgrace my uniform, my unit, or my country.

I will use every means I have, even beyond the line of duty, to restrain my Army comrades from actions disgraceful to themselves and to the uniform.

I am proud of my country and its flag.

I will try to make the people of this nation proud of the service I represent, for I am an American Soldier.

Post-2003 Version of U.S. Soldier's Creed

(Introduced on the direction of Donald Rummsfield)

(Based upon "The Warrior Ethos")

I am an American Soldier.

I am a Warrior and a member of a team.

I serve the people of the United States, and live the Army Values.

I will always place the mission first.

I will never accept defeat.

I will never quit.

I will never leave a fallen comrade.

I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills.

I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.

I am an expert and I am a professional.

I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy, the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.

I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.

I am an American Soldier.

Listed by alleged code violation

The charges can be broken down as follows:

• UCMJ 104 (Aiding the enemy): 1 count. This charge carries a potential death penalty.

• UCMJ 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation): 9 counts. Mostly related to computers.
  • Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-6(k): Forbids transferring classified info to non-secure systems
  • Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(3): Modifying or installing unauthorized software to a system, using it for 'unintended' purposes.
  • Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(4): Circumventing security mechanisms
  • Army Regulation 380-5: Improper storage of Classified Information

• UCMJ 134 (General article): 24 counts. Most of these counts incorporate civilian statutes from the United States Code:
  • 18 U.S.C. § 641: Embezzlement and Theft of Public Money, Property or Records. The government has claimed that various sets of records that Manning transferred were 'things of value' and has thus charged him under this statute.
  • 18 U.S.C. § 793(e): This is part of the Espionage Act. The law forbids 'unauthorized persons' from taking 'national defense' information and either 'retaining' it or delivering it to 'persons not entitled to receive it'. The terminology is rather complicated and often contested in court. 793(e) exists because the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950 modified the original 1917 Espionage Act, partly because of the Alger Hiss/Pumpkin papers case. It is also the same law used against Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo in the Pentagon papers case.
  • 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a) 1 & 2: These are from the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. 1030(a)(1) is sometimes called the 'Computer Espionage' law as it borrows much of its language from the Espionage Act. It was modified by the USA Patriot Act of 2001, which added it to the 'Federal Crimes of Terrorism' list, as well as making it prosecutable under RICO (Racketeering) law.^[6]

Total number of counts: 34

So, all of you military vets tell me this:

How long do Courts Martial typically take to convene and reach a verdict....?

Why is Sgt Richards attempting to claim his revoked entitlements package, exactly...?

He's a disgrace to the uniform, his country and the human race.

He should be in The Hague, not before a board.

Jay Dub, I didn't call you a liar, I questioned your memory and common sense.

This has been a staged show trial from the very beginning and the statements and disclosures made by Assange, Manning, Snowden and Greenwald all reveal them to be parts of the same modified limited hangout operation to create a body of legal precedent on the books establishing in the minds of the American people and world opinion that Osama Bin Laden led some concrete-specific entity called Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda is solely and wholly responsible for carrying out 9/11.

Because that's what the legal textbooks now state for history and will do forever more - this is now unchallenged and admitted truth by a self-confessed Benedict Arnold.

That's what Assange, Manning, Wikileaks and the "defence" have conceded and admitted to in court proceedings and that's now the established and uncontested legal position regarding 9/11, Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

Nice work, fucktards. 

You're screwed history.

Y'all bin took...

Ya bin HAD...

Did none of you even query why a boot Private First Class should have total, unsupervised and unrestricted access to Terrabytes of Top Secret material that had absolutely nothing to do with his job....?

"I can tell you that a guy we served was court martialed, discharged, and remanded to civilian authorities for federal charges in less than 72 hours."

EXACTLY....

Military Justice is incredibly swift and there is NO whistleblower defence. 

He disclosed MASSES of TOP SECRET military material to a foreign national in a time of war.

He admits that he did it.

There is no wiggle room here - if his defence is that of being a whistleblower, then he had no defence and that was obvious from the moment he was detained by MPs.

Were he already sentenced and confined to the Federal Stockade 3 years ago, I would be the first in line demanding a pardon and executive clemency for his actions, provided he did not consciously put innocent lives in jeopardy, which he clearly did, because he didn't in any way filter or self-censor his stolen classified material.

He just sent it to a weird Australian man he had never met and didn't know.

Assange proceeded to publish online the Social Security numbers of currently-deployed US Servicemen, which directly endangered 30,000 plus soldiers, veterans and their next of kin, as well as a complete list of global installations the US military considers "vital" to protecting US interests, and by extension, lives - there can be no POSSIBLE excuse, justification or public interest in disclosing the names and social security details of 30,000 CURRENTLY DEPLOYED servicemen. But he did.

"Sgt Robert Richards is just NOW going in front of a board to clear his name and keep his benefits from him and 8 Marines taking a piss on the Taliban (that was late 2011/ early 2012 in Helmand)."

The video went viral in January of 2012 - ISAF Launched an immediate investigation, having identified the War Criminals responsible on April 19th 2012.

The situation was extremely embarrassing for DoD since In the intervening period since the incident in 2011, Richards was nominated for a Bronze Star with a V for his noteworthy performance in Afghanistan. 

This award had been recommended for upgrade to a Silver Star, and was sitting at MARCENT awaiting final approval when the video purporting to depict Marines urinating on dead Taliban fighters appeared on the Internet in January 2011. This was a REAL mess and a total disgrace to all concerned even despite this PR quagmire,  On August 27, 2012 the U.S. Marine Corps announced that three of the incident involved Marines received non-judicial administrative punishments.

The three Marines who received non-judicial punishments were all members of Third Battalion, Second Marine Regiment (3/2) or served in units that were attached to 3/2 during their deployment. The battalion is based at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Shortly after the video appeared online, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos initiated a criminal investigation to authenticate the video. 

He also commissioned a command investigation by a three-star general to determine what factors may have led to the recording of the video. Both investigations were concluded in March. Based on the information gleaned from the command investigation Lt. Gen. Richard Mills, the Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration who was the general officer who determined the punishments announced on August 27, 2012. ordered a further inquiry was ordered into possible misconduct by members of the unit involved in the incident beyond those depicted in the video. That investigation was completed in June.

"Sgt Robert Richards is just NOW going in front of a board to clear his name and keep his benefits from him and 8 Marines taking a piss on the Taliban (that was late 2011/ early 2012 in Helmand)."

The video went viral in January of 2012 - ISAF Launched an immediate investigation, having identified the War Criminals responsible on April 19th 2012.

The situation was extremely embarrassing for DoD since In the intervening period since the incident in 2011, Richards was nominated for a Bronze Star with a V for his noteworthy performance in Afghanistan. 

This award had been recommended for upgrade to a Silver Star, and was sitting at MARCENT awaiting final approval when the video purporting to depict Marines urinating on dead Taliban fighters appeared on the Internet in January 2011. This was a REAL mess and a total disgrace to all concerned even despite this PR quagmire,  On August 27, 2012 the U.S. Marine Corps announced that three of the incident involved Marines received non-judicial administrative punishments.

The three Marines who received non-judicial punishments were all members of Third Battalion, Second Marine Regiment (3/2) or served in units that were attached to 3/2 during their deployment. The battalion is based at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Shortly after the video appeared online, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos initiated a criminal investigation to authenticate the video. 

He also commissioned a command investigation by a three-star general to determine what factors may have led to the recording of the video. Both investigations were concluded in March. Based on the information gleaned from the command investigation Lt. Gen. Richard Mills, the Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration who was the general officer who determined the punishments announced on August 27, 2012. ordered a further inquiry was ordered into possible misconduct by members of the unit involved in the incident beyond those depicted in the video. That investigation was completed in June.

"Sgt. Richards was recommended for a Medical Board in the fall of 2012. His findings came back in January, 2013 deeming him 100% disabled and recommended for full medical retirement."

This is 100% Disability from a VSI (Very Serious Injury) sustained in the line in 2010.

"To the amazement of those same medical professionals, Cpl Richards returned to full duty with 1st Battalion 6th Marines within 6 months of his initial injury.

Denied full-duty status by medical authorities at Camp Lejeune, Rob headed back to National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland and successfully persuaded the staff there to return him to full-duty.

Once he was removed from limited duty, in October of 2010, Rob re-enlisted in order to deploy with 3/2 and soon received orders to be transferred to 3/2."

"In March 2011, Rob deployed to Musa Qala, Afghanistan with 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marines' Scout Sniper Platoon as the Team Leader of Team 4."

His Article 32 Hearing this week is to ensure he continues to receive veterans benefits over and above the blanket medical waiver and disability allowance he will recieve now, for life, thanks to the medical boards' ruling.

He gets to keep his socialised healthcare for life and living allowance.

He MAY not get to keep his army pension or ribbons....

He should consider himself VERY lucky..... Very lucky INDEED.....

Erik K. Patterson, a limited hangout is when you admit to something bad in order to conceal something far worse, for the purposes of damage limitation and PR. Like when the CIA admitted they had been trying to kill Castro for years.

A modified hangout is where you disclose something or admit to something misleading in order to throw people off the scent of the true scandal, like the GOP persecuting the Clintons over Whitewater to derail ongoing revelations concerning Mena and Iran Contra and bind Bill and Hillary to them in shared self-interest. A distortion of truth, with heavy spinning applied before knocking back the accusation.

Which is what they told Congrss and the American people in 1974.

And indeed, it was true that ongoing research had stopped altogether and began to dry up just a short while into the history of the program.

But it wasn't because the techniques they applied did not work.

It was because as soon as they were ready to go operational and be used and taught in the field, they no longer required any further research.

In this instance, "Manning" is a traitor and a disgrace to his country and his people.

But not because he pretend to leak things which look like secrets but aren't to a creepy Australian who pretends they are important and damaging and in the public's interest to know....

Because he is ostensibly an insider and an Enemy of the State (whilst actually nothing of the kind), who by his feigned dissent cements in stone the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 for future generations as yet unborn.

The Archeologists of the Year 3175 won't be able to spot so easily that he's just completely full of shit.

"Manning was arrested on May 27, 2010, and transferred four days later to Camp Arifjan in Kuwait.

He was charged with several offences in July 2010, replaced by 22 charges in March 2011, including violations of Articles 92 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and of the Espionage Act. The most serious charge is "aiding the enemy," a capital offense. 

Prosecutors said they would not seek the death penalty, but if convicted he would face life imprisonment."

"There have been multiple instances in which Wikileaks has been dangerously reckless. After being criticized for releasing the social security numbers of U.S. soldiers, Assange told the New Yorker that this was acceptable “collateral damage, and acknowledged that despite Wikileaks’ “harm-minimization policy” there may be “blood on our hands.” 

Other leaks were far more dangerous; they included technical details of a device designed to disarm roadside explosives (IEDs) in Iraq and Afghanistan. An even more disturbing leak included the names of Afghan informants who gave U.S. or Afghan forces information about the Taliban, and a Taliban spokesman acknowledged that it had used these cables to hunt people down. 

Assange has been called out by more genuine, liberal, pro-transparency groups such as Amnesty International, the Open Society Institute, and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission. Assange’s response was to demand that the groups criticizing him help him remove names from documents (even this was after they had been posted online in unredacted form!) and accuse the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission of being a U.S. government stooge. In reality, the AIHRC is a well-respected NGO that has made far more important contributions to transparency than Wikileaks has. The AIHRC can boast of exposing the torture of Afghan detainees and forcing positive change. Yet it is Assange who enjoys celebrity status, while those who fought for more meaningful transparency remain unsung. And a few more of them would be alive today, if it were not for WikiLeaks."

Read More

The Hollow Towers: Migratory Birds

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

November 8, 2000

PORT AUTHORITY TAKES STEPS TO PROTECT MIGRATORY BIRDS AROUND WORLD TRADE CENTER 

Floodlights on the roof of 1 World Trade Center will be turned off at night, and other non-essential lights will be dimmed to protect migratory birds from becoming disoriented and crashing into the side of the 110-story skyscrapers.

Skyscrapers present a twin hazard to migrating birds: light and glass. After circling an illuminated building for hours, the birds land on shrubs and trees in planters on the Austin J. Tobin Plaza at the base of the World Trade Center. Trapped inside the glass-and-steel maze of the trade center complex, the birds are vulnerable to collisions with low-level windows. In general, windows reflect the surrounding environment, showing a tree [!!!!!]  inside the building or paired with another outdoor tree to create an open sight line.

At the recommendation of the New York City Audubon Society, the Port Authority this month has taken several measures to protect migratory birds. They are:

� Floodlights that illuminate the TV masts on the roof of 1 World Trade Center have been turned off at night. The floodlights not only attract birds to the area, but they also are likely to cause many injuries as disoriented birds circle the lit-up communications tower.

� Tenants in the World Trade Center were asked to turn off non-essential lights at night or to close their blinds whenever possible.

� Netting was installed in front of ground-floor windows on the east side of 2 World Trade Center. This wall - located directly across from a planter offering the best habitat within the complex - has been identified as being particularly deadly to birds.

"The Port Authority has consistently worked to be good stewards of the environment, and this initiative is part of that commitment," said Alan Reiss, Director of the World Trade Center. "Helping the Audubon Society try to protect the lives of these birds is the right thing to do. We will continue to work closely with the group in search of other steps we can take to help them achieve their goals."

"Collisions with glass is a major bird conservation issue that's received little attention to date," said Rebekah Creshkoff, a volunteer with the New York City Audubon Society. "Populations of many bird species are in serious decline due to human activity, such as habitat loss and fragmentation, cats, pesticide poisoning and collisions with cars as well as with glass. Steps to reduce the toll on any front are welcome and could significantly help to stem the tide."

Nobody knows exactly how many night migratory birds are disoriented by lit-up skyscrapers, or collide with skyscrapers. But New York City Audubon Society volunteers have discovered nearly 500 dead and injured birds outside the World Trade Center and neighboring skyscrapers since September 5.

Dr. Daniel Klem, an ornithologist at Muhlenberg College in Allentown, Pa., has studied the problem for two decades. His conservative estimate: Glass kills at least 100 million to a billion birds in the United States each year.

For background information on glass and other threats to birds, visit www.flap.org, www.towerkill.com or www.abcbirds.org.

cartome.org

11 September 2001

---

Source: http://www.panynj.gov/pr/158-00.html

Read More

Nelson Mandela and the Armed Struggle

"'The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices – submit or fight. 

That time has now come to South Africa. 

We shall not submit and we have no choice but to hit back by all means in our power in defence of our people, our future, and our freedom.'

Firstly, we believed that as a result of Government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given to canalise and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even by war. 

Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or take over the Government. 

We chose to defy the law. 

We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer with violence." 

George Carlin used to riff about oxymorons like "jumbo shrimp," "genuine imitation," "political science" and "military intelligence." But humor is of the gallows sort when we consider the absurdity and tragedy of the world's most important peace prize honoring the world's top war maker.

This week, a challenge has begun with the launch of a petition urging the Norwegian Nobel Committee to revoke Obama's Peace Prize. By midnight of the first day, nearly 10,000 people had signed. The online petition simply tells the Nobel committee: "I urge you to rescind the Nobel Peace Prize that was awarded to Barack Obama."

Many signers have added their own comments. Here are some samples:

"It is with very great regret that I sign this petition, but I feel it is morally the right thing to do. I had phenomenally high hopes that our President would be a torch bearer for the true message of Peace. Instead he has brought death, destruction and devastation to vast areas of the world, and made us less safe by creating more enemies." -Sushila C., Punta Gorda, FL

"War is nothing to be given a peace prize for." -Brent L., San Diego, CA

"President Obama has clearly demonstrated that he is undeserving of the Nobel Peace Prize. Revoke his prize and give it to Bradley Manning!" -Henry B., Portland, OR

"Perhaps a better president than Bush or Romney, but not a Nobel laureate for peace." -Arun N., Woodinville, WA

"I honestly cannot understand how they could bestow that honor on President Obama to begin with; I'm still puzzled!" -Cindy A., Phoenix, AR

"Giving the prize to President Obama has degraded the esteem the Nobel Prize once had as a means of recognizing the best of us. It now represents a pat on the back for the thugs that roam freely amongst our governments. That decision has made me question the integrity of all previous nominations, and wonder if the entire Nobel Prize program is nothing but a sham." -Juan F., Arcata, CA

"Continued occupation of Afghanistan and drone strikes across national borders are NOT the actions of a peacemaker. Mr. Obama has defiled the good will of the Nobel prize." -Dudley D., Chicago, IL

"His actions are speaking louder than his words. He has continued Bush's torture policy and both wars. He has sent armed drones in to remote places and only questionably killed terrorists, but definitely killed civilians. He does not deserve it." -Katherine M., San Diego, CA

"Les espoirs envers Obama étaient élevés, les résultats décevants." -André T., Quebec City, Canada

"A President for Peace? Tell that to the thousands of innocent men, women and hundreds of children that have been killed in drone strikes during the Obama administration. It was laughable that this coveted prize was given to him in the first place but now it is just obscene!" -Barlee R., Antioch, CA

"Allowing the Nobel Peace Prize to remain in Obama's name forsakes the very creed the prize is meant to represent. Please don't (continue to) be a hypocrite -- no way in Hell does that man deserve to be credited in any way for being a peacemaker. I said the same for Bush by the way -- so don't think I'm just some partisan nutcase obsessed with bashing Obama. I simply speak the Truth as often as possible and let the chips fall where they may. Many of us peaceful, compassionate folks would like to have this message droned into your collective heads. Obama is just another puppet doing the bidding of the greedy, mass-murdering global elite." -Greg C., Manhattan, KS

"The peace prize should be awarded to Pfc. Bradley Manning instead." -Robert F., Santa Clara, CA

"This would be an extraordinarily bold move, but it certainly would send a message to the world that peace means peace, not war." -David G., Portland, OR

"I so wish President Obama had lived up to the award he was given. Instead he has chosen to continue and expand the horrors being perpetrated by our country. War is not ever the answer." -Carol G., Goshen, IN

"Droning people to death is not peace." -William S., New York, NY

"Not being George W. Bush was never sufficient ground for this award, and Mr. Obama's enthusiastic support for the extension of empire, fossil fuels, raw military power, and other violence against the earth and its people is further evidence of its unwisdom." -Scott W., Durham, NC

"One must walk the walk of peace, not just talk the talk of peace in order to earn the Peace Prize." -Paul M., Los Angeles, CA

"Drone Bombs create more terrorists than they kill." -Jay J., Roachdale, IN

"A war criminal is not worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize." -Lars P., Afton, WI

"Our President had an unprecedented opportunity to effect a turn-around in foreign policy after the illegal and failed wars of his predecessor. He was hired to do so; but he has squandered the opportunity and has in fact increased U.S. aggression. He does not deserve to be known as a Nobel Peace Prize recipient." -Lynn J., Roslyn, PA

"The PEACE prize should be given to those that work toward PEACE, not the ones that only talk about it." -Karen W., Weirsdale, FL

"Take it from Obama and give it to its rightful owner, Bradley Manning." -Rand K., Hotchkiss, CO

"I urge you to rescind the Nobel from this coward who kills children with drones. Are you intentionally making the peace prize a joke or are you just not too bright?" -Janet M., Charlottetown, CA

"He's not as big a war criminal as Kissinger, so you should revoke both." -Earl F., Santa Maria, CA

"This man is a disgrace in the cause of peace. What were you thinking?" -Sherrill F., Davis, CA

"Given his actions and policies, Obama is more a Man of Pieces -- as in, 'Blow them to pieces!' -- than he is a Man of peace." -Marcus M., San Rafael, CA

"He's done nothing to deserve it; and he's done many things to destroy peace in this world." -Danny D., Shoreline, WA

"This human has killed more after he got the prize." -Thomas P., Lewiston, CA

"He obtained the award on promises he didn't keep." -Ron B., Bend, OR

"President Obama's actions have shown that his words were meaningless. The Nobel Peace Prize means little if it's so easily given away." -Debra J., Pasadena, MD

"As an Obama voter I am deeply disappointed. It was bad judgment to give it to him in the first place." -Tim K., Long Prairie, MN

"Drones are offensive weapons, in every sense of the word." -Richard F., Portland, OR

"As much of an Obama supporter I am, perhaps stripping him of this award would get his attention, nothing else seems to be getting the message across that the American People have had enough of multiple trillion dollar unnecessary wars." -Vern M., Albuquerque, NM

"Obama is a smiling war monger." -Jon M., Wellington, New Zealand

"Under Obama's leadership our assassination-by-drone foreign policy has increased dramatically, which makes him a war criminal." -Frank S., Bellingham, WA

"As a constituent and two-time voter for Barack Obama, I am dismayed and frightened at the warmongering ways he has displayed as our leader. I urge the revocation of his undeserved Nobel prize." -Samuel P., Colton, CA

"What a good idea! Yes, he has the blood of many innocents on his hands." -Gene A., Athens, OH

"He should have never got it in the first place!" -David S., Everett, WA

"I voted for the president in both elections but I do not feel he ever deserved the Nobel Peace Prize! Please rescind it!" -Carol H., Michigan City, IN

"Please start with Henry Kissinger before Obama, whose hands are tied." -Bob S., Gibsons, BC, Canada

"Giving him a Nobel Peace Prize is an affront to the deep heritage of true peacemakers who well deserved it. Obama has waged continuous war, torture and other violence since being President. Please revoke it now." -Barry S., Macdoel, CA

"Bush gave us 2 unfunded wars. Will Obama add a few more? Stop wars, drones and killing with other people's children." -Burt S., Pompton Plains, NJ

"I voted for Obama -- twice. I am very sad to sign this petition, but I believe in my heart, what he has done with drones is totally wrong!" -Gloria H., Santa Rosa, CA

"Obama's deeds do not match his words." -Evalyn S., Walnut Creek, CA

"You lost any credibility giving Obama the peace prize. Fix it." Camilo B., Long Beach, CA

"Obama's harsh treatment of whistleblowers who are trying to expose the outlandish abuses of the military/corporate state disqualify him from any awards given to peacemakers." -David L., Alamosa, CO

"It's real sad that the promises that were made by Barack Obama concerning nearly everything have been lost with his sellout to corporate greed. We need a real leader for Peace." -Al B., Ignacio, CO

"I had high hopes for this President when I voted for him. I believed him to be a peace maker, unlike the hawk who was his predecessor. However, there seems to be no effort at peacemaking, at reconciliation, at hope, and killing-by-drone simply leads to more fear and hatred. I fear the day that the government will try to control US with them, too." -Louise A., Greenfield, MA

"You gave him the Nobel Peace Prize too soon. His use of drones and killing of innocent civilians attests to his being anything but a peace-maker." -Rev. Sandy G., San Francisco, CA

"It is not a good example of what peace means when the Nobel Prize is awarded to the leader of a nation engaging in war as a business strategy. Make a statement, please." -Chandra P., Walsenburg, CO

"I, like so many others, gave this man the benefit of the doubt. It has been thrown back in our faces." -Chris C., Harrogate, Great Britain

"He never deserved it and he hasn't earned it. Yes, please, take it back." -Jackie F., Oakland, CA

"The Nobel Peace Prize should not be awarded to war mongers and war criminals. Therefore, please revoke the Peace Prize you awarded to President Obama in 2009." -Fred N., Pleasanton, CA

"It is with deepest regret we ask for this but our President's actions have not lived up to the high honor of promoting peace." -GlendaRae H., South Bend, IN

"I don't think anyone ever understood what Obama was supposed to have done to have deserved the Peace Prize in the first place. And I'm a lifelong Democrat, so my feeling that the Nobel Committee made a mistake is not based in political partisanship." -Steve J., Hermosa Beach, CA

"It appears that preemptive peace prizes work about as well as preemptive wars." -Jaan C., Alameda, CA

To read more comments, or to sign the RootsAction.org petition urging the Norwegian Nobel Committee to revoke President Obama's Peace Prize, click here.

Norman Solomon is co-founder of RootsAction.org.

Read More