The Nobel Committee is in a shambles, so they probably have other things on their mind. It remains to be seen whether or not the reputation of its various prizes for science and literature etc. will remain as prestigious. The Peace Prize, though, is a different kind of award, and there have always been controversies. Remember Kissinger getting one? I was a child at the time, but I still recall many adults not being terribly happy. And as much as I like Obama, I'm still unclear why he got one so early in his presidency, before he'd actually done anything.

Should it be possible to rescind or revoke a previously given prize if a recipient later behaves in a way that harms rights or the human condition? Aung San Suu Kyi was once a model prize recipient, a political prisoner who agitated for democracy in Myanmar. Now she's the leader of a country that not only denies an entire group citizenship, but is practicing ethic cleansing and other atrocities.

I've heard discussion of this in the news lately. Some insist that it won't ever happen, and it's not the job of the committee to comment on a recipient's behavior after a prize is given. They aren't "saints," after all, and even prize recipients are allowed to have flaws and failings.

But people aren't talking taking Nobel Peace Prizes away for personal scandals or misconduct, but for later behavior that works against the very thing for which a recipient received recognition.

It seems clear in her case, but if the committee could revoke prizes, it could open a can of worms regarding politically controversial prize recipients. It might start the committee down a slippery slope of constantly monitoring subsequent actions of all recipients (though, again, said committee has given controversial prizes before).

Is there a way the prize committee could walk an appropriate line here?