Julian Assange To Run For Australian Senate 207
New submitter bozman8 writes "Announced recently on social networking platform Twitter, Julian Assange has found a way to run for the Upper House of the Australian Senate, despite being detained under house arrest in Britain. Along with Julian's candidacy, WikiLeaks has announced that they are going to run a nominee against current Prime Minister Julia Gillard in her local electorate."
Go Assange! (Score:5, Funny)
Go Assange! I wonder if they would trust him with secret documents!
Re:Go Assange! (Score:5, Funny)
He already has them.
Re: (Score:2)
Atleast now he knows not to use the same private key for different purposes like last time.
Re: (Score:3)
Joking aside, it would be interesting to see whether this results in a more open government than before.
Re:Go Assange! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Go Assange! (Score:4, Informative)
No, because he isn't part of a diplomatic mission. What you're thinking of is that which is known as parliamentary privilege, parliamentary immunity or legislative immunity. In Commonwealth countries such as Australia, parliamentary privilege generally only extends to protection from slander or libel for statements made in the legislature. Legislators are not immune from criminal actions for the simple reason that all are equal under the law. This is pretty much the same as in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
He should be Ron Paul's running mate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd vote for the pair.
He was born in Australia, can he even run in the US presidential elections.
In Australia that doesn't matter, our current PM was born in Wales and the opposition leader was born in England.
Clever (Score:2, Interesting)
If elected he'll have immunity (or so I think, I don't know Australian law) and can be rid of the false charges against him (for a few years, anyway). Knowing Australia, though, I'd be surprised if they don't vote for Cthulhu instead.
Australia, don't fuck this up.
Re: (Score:3)
It'll make a stir once the news breaks here (Score:4, Interesting)
I live in the next electorate across from Ms Gillard's electorate, so I won't get the privilege of helping stir the pot... but if I could I'd definitely vote for anyone promising the level of transparency Wikileaks represents.
The other important point here is that Julia has done a shameful job of supporting a high profile Australian in trouble, pretty much towing the pro USA line (Australia traditionally lives in the US of A's pocket) which means she hasn't acknowledged the important community service roll that whistle blower organisations such as Wikileaks fill in a open and honest democracy. Good luck to Julian, he's a national hero!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those names actually mean "the dying fields" and "place of war" in the Aborigine language.
Nah I just made that up. But I made you think, right? ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
As an Aussie I believe we need a government in this country that is no longer the lap dog of the Yanks and the vested interests they represent.
We DON'T need American troops or facilities on Australian soil.
We DON'T need an American spy base in the Australian outback.
We DON'T need to keep signing up to us-lead "free-trade" agreements that are anything but free (the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement did NOTHING to open up US markets to Australian agricultural exports)
We DON'T need to continue to spend money o
Re: (Score:2)
I am in the wrong state so I cant vote for Julian.
Re: (Score:2)
Senate (Score:5, Informative)
The senate has proportional voting.
Everyone ranks all the candidates, then they start counting. As soon as a candidate has enough to get elected, any further votes move to the second preference. You can end up with some funny results if everyone puts the major party they don't like last.
Re: (Score:2)
OTH he would make a great celebrity candidate for the greens and with their organisation behind him, Assange might have a good chance of getting in.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, so you're saying that who gets elected depends on the order in which the votes are tallied?
Re: (Score:2)
When you vote in Aus, you don't cast a single vote - you give a list of preferences. In the Senate, there are generally over 100 preferences to rank (if you chose to vote by individual) or 20 or so (if you choose to vote by party). I pretty much always but the major parties in the bottom few places in my preferences (also Greens and Communists - if there's a difference).
Not bad compared too others running... (Score:2)
Remember pauline hanson?
Yeah he's not that bad really, just a massive ego like most hackers. Compare to others running in politics
he's not that bad, look at bob katter and his wing nut party. Remember Sir Jo from QLD back in the day? I do
and so does julian. Remember the publicity stunt of Peter Garret joining the labor party, where is he now?
More power to him, I'd certainly vote for him
He may have a while to wait ... (Score:4, Informative)
He may have to wait a bit to try for the Senate.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Australian_federal_election [wikipedia.org] it must by held by 30 November 2013. Whilst there is *some* possibility of it being called early, I wouldn't be holding my breath.
Despite being under house arrest (Score:5, Funny)
Being a British criminal has never kept anyone out of Australia, quite the contrary. ;)
And what better place than with all the other criminals that run the country?
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's not. Just a bit over 200 years ago England exported a lot of criminals to Australia. [wikipedia.org]
It's a real I don't live in that electorate .. voting for Assange would be a double whammy - get rid of Gillard and introduce new blood into what is now essentially two party system (liberal and labour are about the same, only the greens offer anything much different excepting minor parties and independents).
If he sides with Liberal he'd be in good standing to cash in on the liberal landslide vote expected next elec
Re: (Score:2)
to get rid of the useless labour government we have right now
Useless is a relative term, Labour are doing quit well compared to the liberal (blueblood) governments we have had recently, they done an increadible amount of work undering the damage that had been done to this country and its reputation in the previous decade.
Do you seriously want Abbott in charge instead, or maybe bring Howard back ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What has the labour party actually done apart from give us a one time tax break and take rights away from the people left right and centre?
One time tax break, which one are you refering to, the $500 handout ?
I know Labour is increasing the tax free threashhold from $6,000, to $18,000, a $1500 tax break every year.
What rights have they taken away, the greens are better than both libs and labour of that is your main concern.
Personally i think we were much better off 10 years ago
Because of the GFC.
I dont vote for who my parents vote for, i think for myself, my views are very much in the minority in my electorate.
You tell me not to belittle liberals and claim im into group polarisation, yet you bag L
Re: (Score:2)
Yes i was referring to the $900 dollars that they bought their votes with, which every one spent on a flat screen from Korea. Not that a tax free threshold for an incredibly slim number of the population (how many people do you know that earn under $18000?) isn't great.
As far as rights go how about all the increased police powers, the fact that they no longer need a search warrant to walk in to any house they want. Also the greens are one of the main supporters of no r18+ games and why we can't have nice
Re: (Score:2)
Integration of major government agencies - Medicare, Centrelink, DHS, CRS is a huge waste of money
Good reform.
Can't stop the boats
(they takin our jaaabs?)
Howard solved the problem by making everyone HATE us and think we are all racists, is that the sort of govenrment you want back ?
I think the Malaysia deal would have been good, but Libs wont sign up for that because they have their corrupt backroom deals to shovel heaps of money to Narau.
School 'building' scheme was a real waste of money in many places. Heart is in the right place, governance and oversight isn't
"The final report into the Building the Education Revolution (BER) scheme says about 5 or 6 per cent of the $16 billion program was not value for money." - http://www.abc.net.au/news/201 [abc.net.au]
From the Department of Redundancy Department... (Score:4, Informative)
The Upper House of the Australian parliament is the Senate, "Upper House of the Australian Senate" doesn't make any sense.
The dark side of democracy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Always good to see a Dystopian "explain" how the Utopists are doomed, doomed I tell you ; ).
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, reminds me of the TVTropes Renamed Tropes entry for The Sliding Scale of Idealism Versus Cynicism [tvtropes.org]: "used to be '...Versus Realism'. It was changed by idealists. To be fair, it was probably named by the cynics."
Stunt (Score:2)
Controversial candidates, even popular controversial ones, don't win. So this isn't really anything to consider seriously.
But if it were, I would be against Assange being a member of any government - or any group that might be subject to whistleblowers, at that. Not because of any suitability, but because it would compromise his position as an independent helper of whistleblowers, and that position is far more necessary than any political office.
If Assange joins a government, a corporate board, or hell, eve
Easy target for opponents (Score:3, Interesting)
All his opponents have to do is run a campaign saying he;
was accused of rape in Sweden and has been under house arrest, (make him look like a criminal)
has not lived in Australia for 6 years (wiki says he hasn't lived in australia since starting with wikileaks [founded in 2006]), (make him look unaustralian)
released private diplomatic cables relating to Australia, (make him look like he doesn't care about australian national security)
and they'd get pretty easy boost.
A little help here? (Score:2)
Excuse me. It's still pretty early here and I'm still a bit sleepy and I can't find my reading glasses, but does that headline say, "Australian"?
What a weird wonderful world we live in.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he is Australian. Running for any other senate in the world would probably be a bit of a problem.
If he opens his tax records, ok (Score:2)
Convicted Felons are eligible? (Score:2)
Ya, i know hes not been convicted yet, but lets say he wins, then is convicted.. that mean he loses his position?
Why? He's an anarchist who hates all government (Score:2)
What would his platform be? "Like Ron Paul but with even fewer rules and moral obstacles!"
won't work (Score:2)
move along... nothing to see here
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whistleblowers and muckrakers shouldn't be a part of the government.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes and all that rot.
You're assuming that he's a reformer. I think he's an attention whore. If I'm right, politics is the perfect profession for him.
Re:Yeah...I don't like this. (Score:5, Insightful)
An attention whore who gets said attention by exposing the flat-out evil things all of our governments do on a near-daily basis.
At least he does something for society compared to any of those reality show retards.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because US government goes around shooting journalists and kids from attack helicopters on near-daily basis and then cover it all up.
What?
Re:Yeah...I don't like this. (Score:4, Informative)
Case Closed: Weapons Clearly Seen on Video of Reuters Reporters Killed in Iraq [mypetjawa.mu.nu]
You may want to read the documents from the official investigation [scribd.com] which are seen at the bottom or the link above.
Re: (Score:2)
Having seen that video I firmly believe that there were no arms. The fact that you quote a US investigation as
a reliable source. Only a blind man or a fool sees weapons in that video.
Re: (Score:2)
Watch the video [youtube.com] full screen, go to time 3:37, look at the group of men above the cursor. Several of them are pretty clearly carrying weapons. The hefty guy on the left is swinging an AK. The guy to his right is carrying an RPG. Look again at time 4:50 at the man at 11:00 above the cursor, and watch him carefully. As he ducks down at 4:52-4:53 you can see his weapon.
Only a blind man or a fool sees weapons in that video.
Some men will not see what is plainly seen to avoid having to question their own beliefs.
Re:Yeah...I don't like this. (Score:4, Insightful)
I know you are going for the bullshit baffles brains crap but suck it up, when White phosphorus is used to generate smoke or in a flare, it is not considered a chemical weapon but when it is targeted at people it is a chemical weapon, end of story. Forget the silly propaganda crap.
Carbon monoxide is produced by motor vehicles, people that drive cars and not considered to be using a chemical weapon. However if you put people in a room and fill that room with carbon monoxide from a car exhaust you have used a chemical weapon to kill them. See, double plus points for using a car analogy to blow holes in your crap let's fuck with literal interpretations to hide murderous criminal actions behind propaganda bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Parent is only partially correct. WP is indeed an incendiary weapon in the first stage of its impact on the living victim. It however becomes a chemical weapon in the second stage, as WP that burns through skin into tissue will likely be absorbed by normal human metabolism, causing severe damage to kidneys, liver and heart.
Essentially even if the victim survives the being burned, he/she will likely need treatment for severe chemical poisoning (phosphorous poisoning) or risk heart/kidney/liver/multiple organ
Re: (Score:2)
It however becomes a chemical weapon in the second stage, as WP that burns through skin into tissue will likely be absorbed by normal human metabolism, causing severe damage to kidneys, liver and heart.
Essentially even if the victim survives the being burned, he/she will likely need treatment for severe chemical poisoning (phosphorous poisoning) or risk heart/kidney/liver/multiple organ failure.
Not according to this source:
Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology, 2nd edition, Volume 1, by Robert Irving Krieger, p. 1400
Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, and Excretion
Phosphorus is absorbed from the respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts. It can cause severe burns to the skin, but it is said that not enough is absorbed from the burned areas to cause systemic poisoning. The dead tissue may be protective by permitting time for complete oxidation to phosphoric acid. Whether dilute formulations such as may occur in the gastrointestinal tract would be absorbed from the skin in harmful amounts has not be tested.
Unreacted elemental phosphorous may be demonstrated in the tissues of people who die several days after ingesting phosphorous but not in those who die after longer periods.
Re: (Score:2)
This talks about phosphorous in pesticides, which is a different allotrope of phosphorous known as yellow phosphorous.
Here is a quote about white phosphorous from http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp103-c2.pdf [cdc.gov]
White phosphorus is the most active allotropic form and is extremely toxic when inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through burned areas (Eldad and Simon 1991). It is fat soluble, glows in yellow-green light, and ignites spontaneously upon drying and exposure to air. Storage of white phosphorus in water
Re: (Score:2)
Correction: the book speaks about phosphorous which is mixed with other chemicals (which among other things elevate flash point). It's the same allotrope.
Re: (Score:2)
This talks about phosphorous in pesticides, which is a different allotrope of phosphorous known as yellow phosphorous.
White phosphorus and yellow phosphorus are the same substance [wikipedia.org] called by two names. The other allotropes are black, red, and violet. Although it doesn't really matter, the section I quoted is about white phosphorus.
Next, thanks for the link. It is an interesting paper. However, I will draw your attention to this section, which is the scenario under discussion, which is dermal application of solid white phosphorous, not ingestion or inhalation of various forms:
Re: (Score:2)
I know you are going for the bullshit baffles brains crap
No, what I'm going for is to be correct on the subject, something you aren't achieving, and don't seem interested in.
White phosphorus is used to generate smoke or in a flare, it is not considered a chemical weapon but when it is targeted at people it is a chemical weapon
No, it is never a chemical weapon as defined in treaty and common usage in the military. It is an incendiary, a flame weapon - it sets things on fire - it burns at 800C. When you get a chunk of it on you as it burns at 800C, you get burnt - that is how you are wounded.
Here is a list of chemical weapons [wikipedia.org]. Could you point out all of the chemical weapons that create their casualty effect by bu
Re:Yeah...I don't like this. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yeah...I don't like this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
I don't think you have a firm grasp of the subject you raised.
Pakistani General: Actually, The Drones Are Awesome [wired.com]
Re:Yeah...I don't like this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Close! He's an attention whore who gets attention by exposing the things all governments do on a near-daily basis and pretending that they're flat-out evil. If they don't seem evil enough, just edit the videos until they do. Journalistic ethics should never stand between a whore and his attention.
Just like mainstream journalists then. Yet they aren't being detained, because they tell the right lies.
While wikileaks is in no way immune to this, mainstream journalism is much worse.
You shouldn't just trust any information, whether that's your local newspaper or wikileaks. Get all the facts from all sources, and make up your own mind.
That said, think about this : if all goverments are doing such a good job, and aren't evil at all, why is there so much suffering,poverty and violence in this world.
And what can YOU do about it ?
Re: (Score:2)
That, and they aren't charged with unrelated crimes. The ones that are charged with unrelated crimes tend to be arrested and tried.
Re:Yeah...I don't like this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like mainstream journalists then. Yet they aren't being detained, because they tell the right lies.
That, and they aren't charged with unrelated crimes. The ones that are charged with unrelated crimes tend to be arrested and tried.
If the power structure wants to find crimes, they will find crimes.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. "
- Cardinal Richelieu (Prime Minister of France, 1624-1642)
Re: (Score:3)
And people die in war, when you have a war with a terrorist organization the line between civilian and insurgent is thin mistakes are made.
Which is why we should cover casualties, military and civilian, accidental and intentional, as much as possible. The more aware people are of this simple fact, the less likely they will be to tolerate war.
Vote for me, I'll put our allied troops in danger just because I don't like war.
Really now. Who's more concerned about the safety of the troops? The ones who want to
Re:Yeah...I don't like this. (Score:4, Informative)
>in a war that innocent people die
I like that, "in a war" like "in a rainstorm" or other event that had no human cause.
Your google for today is "robert jackson kingpin", and search the top link for "kingpin". Jackson was a US Attorney general that thought (as official US policy) that plotting aggressive war was the greatest crime possible, which he prosecuted before, and as a greater crime than, the Holocaust. In the case of this war, the plotting of aggressive war was made possible by secrecy and lies. The secrecy and lies then continued to deepen and extend the war, and to cover up the thousands of smaller crimes it made possible.
As to your argument that "anyone with a half a mind knew it was going on anyways", clearly people have a remarkable capacity to fool themselves, as you can see years later right here on slashdot, with the link to the two bodyguards that were carrying weapons, and the CentCom "investigation" that exonerated, well, CentCom and all its loyal employees. But the huge majority of those present were NOT carrying weapons, which means to anybody who'd been on a street in Baghdad that year, that they were civilians with the indispensable bodyguards, not a militia where everybody would of course have been armed.
When people don't WANT to believe something, you have to pry their eyes open like Alex in Clockwork Orange and then you still have to rub their noses in it. Twice.
This war will be admitted for the crime it was only long after the last participant has died of old age.
And never mind your "troops in danger" crap, that was trashed using the Pentagon's own admissions about day 2.
Re:Yeah...I don't like this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yeah...I don't like this. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think he's the real life version of Gaius Baltar. Do whatever will get you popular and get you women.
That might be the case, but even though Baltar was a whore for popularity and generally spineless, he served humanity well when it was needed and although not all people liked him for the most part (in the show and in the audience) he played an important part in making things better.
I don't care if the guy sleeps with a newly imported Swedish prostitue (sorry, friend) each night. If he brings some accountability and causes the Australian government to go in a better direction, then I can't say that I am anything but delighted. I don't care what the hell politicians do once they are off the clock - I want my politicians to work and do their best for me as a faceless, anonymous member of the public.
Re:Yeah...I don't like this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Attention whore, maybe. Idealist, certainly.
Maybe he gets in the senate, get's on a committee (doubt that but anyway) and learns why secrets are kept.
I personally agree with everything he's done. If we were all completely open about everything we have done that directly effected at least one other human, I don't reckon there would be war. If there were, they would be very short. Courts can be great things when they're not bogged down in IP law and drugs.
spoken as someone with no direct interest in the money for killing tea towel heads consortium.....
Re:Yeah...I don't like this. (Score:5, Insightful)
By definition, a whistleblower IS part of the organization he blows the whistle on. Sometimes the muck needs a close up raking.
That doesn't eliminate the need for outside muckrakers as well in case the insider goes over to the dark side.
Re:Yeah...I don't like this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Whistleblowers and muckrakers shouldn't be a part of the government.
Neither should liars and assholes. But guess what?
Re:Yeah...I don't like this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Whistleblowers and muckrakers shouldn't be a part of the government.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes and all that rot.
Dude - Maxine Mckew winning Bennelong off John Howard was one of the sweetest moments in Australian politics.
In case you've already forgotten - she also was a journalist, and has definitely been a muckracker and whistlebower in her time at the ABC.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and didn't she last a long time? Her election to parliament was a protest vote, no more. Look at her share of the vote when she got tossed. She can't have been a very effective representative, hmmmm?
I have a great deal of respect for her as a journalist, but the election results speak for themselves.
Now if you want to talk about Peter Garrett's brilliant career.....(crickets).....Assange couldn't be worse (I hope).
Re: (Score:2)
I have a great deal of respect for her as a journalist, but the election results speak for themselves.
In all fairness Bennelong is a natural Tory seat. You are right that her election was largely a protest vote. But I think her loss was neither unexpected, nor particularly any reflection on her personally.
Yes, Peter Garrett ... hmm.
As a parliamentarian he runs the risk of resembling that unguided missile from Denison. But I don't think the point of voting for hi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And why? Shouldn't the people have information what actions their own government is doing? The government is for the people, not the other way round.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Seems to me to one of the better places for them to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Whistleblowers and muckrakers shouldn't be a part of the government.
Dude, politicians are some of the worst muckrakers of them all. He'll fit right in there. As for whistleblowers, at least he'll have one person to keep him company [wikipedia.org].
Re:Good luck with that. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You could just about use the senate ballot paper as a tablecloth.
I somehow miss-read tablecloth as toilet paper.
We have to vote on this coming Saturday, I hope it's both soft and strong.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't that pretty much the exact thing you'd want. At least you get to vote on actual issues, as compared to "liberal" versus "conservative" like most of us. Where the liberals are about as liberal as the conservatives are conservative.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that pretty much the exact thing you'd want. At least you get to vote on actual issues, as compared to "liberal" versus "conservative" like most of us. Where the liberals are about as liberal as the conservatives are conservative.
Not really,
We get to vote for candidates, not issues unless there is a referendum. It's still a two horse race in Australia despite the balance of power in the senate being held by the greens. We have the Liberal party (supports business) or the Labor party (supports workers).
Re: (Score:2)
I somehow miss-read tablecloth as toilet paper.
Unless you have severe bowel problems, using the senate ballot paper as TP is overkill.
Re: (Score:2)
He has no chance of winning [...]
They said that of Andrew Wilkie.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US it's a major crime to interfere with a senator travailing back to the senate for the purpose of making a vote. I wonder if Australia has a similar law and if Assange plains on getting the fuck out of the UK this way?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure even if Australia has that law, Australian law does not apply in the UK.
Re:Good luck with that. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Good luck with that. (Score:4, Interesting)
How do you go from two women scorned to US government involvement being transparent?
Read this carefully. The US government can not take him out of Sweden PERIOD. He is required by extradition to be return to the UK FIRST.
It also shows just how little slashdotters know about pissing off women. They will stab you in the back if you scorn them by sleeping with other women and lying to them about it.
Also Sweden's Laws on rape are very very much in favor of Women. She can change her mind after the fact lie about it and still have you found guilty.
Re:Good luck with that. (Score:5, Informative)
If this is unreasonable, call me out on it, but honestly how can anyone take these charges seriously?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Swedish prosecutor is a CIA asset (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Prove your CIA assertion or shut the fuck up. It's arguments likes yours that obscure the truth to make a political point. If the US really wanted this guy they would have taking him already.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh well that proves he in league with all the CIA nefarious deeds without a doubt. If that is the proof for your accusations you best keep it to yourself so no one finds out what a gullible idiot you are. Conspiracy theories, blog echo chambers for extremists on all sides, and innuendo is tearing this world apart every day. As far as Assange goes the purpose of Wikileaks was to release information to protect the identities of the source. Instead he took ownership, strong armed media organisations, released
Re: (Score:2)
Also if I'm not mistaken he is the only rapist on the Interpol list (or was it the European equivalant ?). Whatever.
It could indicate their might be an other reason he is on the list.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
After confusing fical policy with physical policy Steve Fielding calmly explained he had an good excuse, that he has a learning disability.
To think he was one of a few that held the balance of power for the whole country, disturbing.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people I know think he is a force for good. Maybe you should stop hanging out with rednecks.
A couple of percent will get you a senator. Hell, I would put Julian first because if he got in, it might shake things up a bit, and if he didn't my vote goes to my second preference anyway.
Dontcha just love preferential voting?
OZ too (Score:2)
Same here except I hear nothing but admiration. I wonder why you feel the need to lie?
Re: (Score:2)
thanks for the baseless accusation. A quick poll around the office confirms what I have been hearing for months, average people don't think that much of him, it's as simple as that.
Re: (Score:3)
For the lulz if nothing else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't be a MILF if you're not a M.
Are you saying she isn't a Mutant?