Does President Barack Obama Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?

     In my opinion, yes. He stopped the practice of torture, and he has vowed to withdraw from Iraq. More generally, he has restored the Rule of Law in the United States.

     The Constitution, treaties, and statutes of the United States clearly prohibit torture, which is defined by law as the intentional infliction of serious physical or mental pain or suffering. Despite the opinions offered by John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Stephen Bradbury of the Bush Justice Department, there was never any doubt that the "enhanced interrogation techniques" that were carried out by the Bush administration constituted torture. "Waterboarding" is the slow drowning of prisoners. The "cold cell" involves hosing naked prisoners with 40 degree water in a cell kept at a temperature of 50 degrees. "Stress positions" means that we shackled prisoners in a standing position for more than seven days at a time. If you have been inclined to believe that these methods of interrogation are not torture, then I invite you to undergo, or to watch your loved ones undergo, these techniques, and then tell me whether or not you believe that they inflict serious pain or suffering. It has been more than 300 years – since the Salem witch trials – since we allowed lawful authorities to engage in this kind of behavior. Obama put a stop to the torture of prisoners and for that reason alone he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

     But there is an even more important reason why President Obama deserves this award. The United States invaded Iraq upon the flimsiest of pretexts. Iraq had nothing to do with attacking us on September 11, 2001, and it had no "weapons of mass destruction" with which to threaten us. It posed no immediate threat to us or to allies such as Kuwait. Congress authorized the President to invade Iraq based upon false premises. The United States invaded Iraq and proceeded to build permanent military bases with the intent to occupy that country indefinitely. The only reason that we went into Iraq is that it owns a quarter of the world's oil reserves, and we sought to control that resource. This was in accordance with the principles set forth between 1997 and 2000 by the Project for a New American Century, whose signatories included Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Jeb Bush, and whose express credo was that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world."  And they weren't talking about moral leadership or leading by example – it was, plain and simple, a plan for world domination through military might. This group's plan, which was implemented by the Bush administration, was in violation of the fundamental principle of international law which forbids wars of aggression. President Obama campaigned against the continued occupation of Iraq and has agreed to withdraw our forces from that country.

     The United States invaded Afghanistan in 2002, and in contrast to the war in Iraq it is a just war. Afghanistan has no natural resources that we covet. Al Qaeda operated there under the protection of the Taliban, and the Taliban refused to give up bin Ladin or his associates to us after we were attacked on 9/11. We invaded Afghanistan and are operating there solely on the principle of self-defense. The war in Afghanistan was justifiably authorized by Congress under the Authorization for Use of Military Force. People may reasonably disagree about whether or not the war in Afghanistan is worth it – whether the continued threat that al Qaeda or the Taliban poses to us or to Pakistan or to the world justifies our continued involvement – but there is no doubt that this war is consistent with principles of international law.

     As a lawyer and a law professor I take the Rule of Law quite seriously. When a President – any President, for any reason – fails to enforce the law or disobeys the law, it is a violation of the bedrock principle of democracy, because the law is the voice of the people, and the people have the right to rule themselves. President Bush was not guided by law. He was guided by the advice of his Vice-President and by his own inner light, but he did not have a great deal of respect for the law itself, and that lack of respect was most clearly manifest in his habit of signing bills into law and at the same time indicating that the did not intend to enforce or obey the law. It was this inattention to law and legal process that led to abuses such as torture and the U.S. Attorney scandal. In contrast, President Obama enforces the law, even laws that he does not agree with such as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

     I include this appeal to the Rule of Law as a reason justifying the award of the Nobel Peace Prize because ultimately the law represents the attempt of society to distribute power and to resolve disputes in a peaceful manner. Martin Luther King, Jr., deserved the Peace Prize not only because he resisted oppression, but because of how he resisted it – through peaceful confrontation, with the purpose of changing people's hearts and minds, which ultimately led to changes in the law. King's efforts resulted in the adoption of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 1965, and 1968, all of which are landmarks on the trail of human freedom. I likewise admire President Obama's commitment to law and to the peaceful resolution of disputes. The Peace Prize is well-deserved.

Tagged as: afghanistan, barack obama, iraq, nobel peace prize, peace prize, President Obama, project for a new american century, Rule of Law, torture